html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>What is the Future of Sex? - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature49" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/sod.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

What is the Future of Sex?

From Primordial Man - through Ancient Man - to Primordial Computer. How learning in the cultural system ensures us a secret world where sexuality can dwell - even with the end of sex

By: Hidden Righteous One

The Future of the Secret World  (Source)

Where did Freud derive his basic form of thinking, of the patterns found in the psyche, where each time a certain pattern is replaced by another pattern of a more advanced stage, and then again replaced by another pattern? This is how he places every psychological phenomenon he identifies in an increasingly complex system of patterns (throughout his career and the development of his thinking, and in parallel throughout the psychological development of the child) - creating a complex and layered structure for the psyche. Such a layered structure later allows for movements of deepening, dialectics, and complexity in dealing with the psyche, which is expressed in treatment abilities (psychology), the ability to use his theory in art (especially narrative - like literature and cinema) and even in theorization (especially that which favors complicated patterns, like French philosophy).

In order to bring harmonization in the interpretation of contradictory perceptions in the Zohar, as if they were all part of the same large pattern, Lurianic Kabbalah often used the idea of replacing such patterns, which allowed it to create complexity and depth to the point of parody, in an unbelievably complicated picture of the upper world (this is similar to the operation of group multiplication in mathematics). For such replacement of patterns, which are ultimately a very abstract structure, to exist and "live" in some reality, the secret doctrine often associated them with some ancient world, where the changing patterns "lived", and their development was created, like "Adam Kadmon" [Primordial Man]. This Adam Kadmon is a kind of human pattern of divinity, or of a very early stage in creation.

Hasidism, in its teaching, emphasized the transfer of Kabbalistic structures into the person himself, in order to create a developed doctrine of the soul, and here the ancient medium is often related to the creation of the soul and its various levels, which are not conscious - and in which the patterns can "live". This systematic transfer allowed Hasidism a deepening, which in an anachronistic ironic way, can be called psychological today. Freud, who grew up in a Hasidic family (from Galicia), transferred the idea of pattern replacement into a "scientific" medium (although of course there was nothing scientific about it): early childhood and the development of the psyche in it. He transferred the spiritual space of the secret doctrine into an unconscious space. Thus, a space was created where patterns that allow complexity can "live". Adam Kadmon became a small child.

Today, with the biologization of the psyche and spirit, we are witnessing the transfer of the ancient and complex patterns at the foundation of man into the biological space. Whether it's about the brain - and its inner parts, its various organs (including the primitive brain), down to the resolutions of functional networks within it, and its initial and ancient development, from the womb to childhood - or whether it's about genetics - including the development of ancient man, and ancient developments of our genetic tree, deep into the depths of evolution. The ancient brain and the ancient genome are hidden spaces where "irrational" preferences and tendencies, secrets, lack of symmetry and moral injustice, arbitrariness, malfunctions, and deep influences we are unaware of can be housed. Everything that is not enlightened enough - can be housed in the dark medium of evolutionary or neurological explanation.

Let's take, for example, a typical classic test case for the hidden medium: gender preferences and sexuality. If Kabbalah dealt with them through the secret doctrine, and Hasidism through its transfer to the soul, while Freud already dealt with them through his system of patterns (whose detailed parallels to Kabbalah are obvious to those who know [Kabbalah]) which he called psychoanalysis (to receive the prestige of scientificity, understanding his generation) - today sexology is moving towards neuro and genomics. The day is not far when the sciences of neurosexology and sexogenetics will be the interpreting and even treating sciences for everything related to sexuality, and will do so with unprecedented technological efficiency, which may simply solve the sexual problem of man, as it solved the problem of hunger. Just as satisfying the food drive is perceived as a basic human right - so will the right to satisfying sex be perceived.

We, of course, recoil from the secular process we see here. In the ancient world, sexuality was a mysterious thing, which received deep mythical-literary treatment, such as in the sin of knowledge, and developed theurgic treatment. But we see here a long-term historical process of secularization of the myth: already Kabbalah itself, and certainly Hasidism, were in their time a spiritual technologization of sexuality in relation to the mythical space of the Song of Songs for example, or to pagan and shamanic spaces of sexuality. But the process in which healing in psychoanalysis (a completely imaginary medium) becomes healing in biological analysis, and the soul undergoes complete secularization - evokes recoil in the person of our time, who has not yet finished his process of secularization. If the secularization of the world has already been completed, with the help of science - man is not yet mature for the completion of the process: the secularization of the soul. After secularization from God - the time has come for secularization from man himself. Or, if we use Nietzschean wording: the death of God is only the first stage, and the next stage is the death of man.

If so, after a complete biological decoding of the soul, with what spiritual medium will we be left, in which layered secrecy, depth and mystery can exist? What will be left for us after the death of man, when the superman is late to arrive (and if he arrives - he is a computer)? What is the next stage in the process? There is still one mysterious medium, which biologization cannot touch, and which is a spiritual space where patterns creating complexity, or alternatively myths, can "live". Even after the death of man - culture will remain for us. Culture - including literature and art - is an ancient space where ancient preferences and lack of symmetry, irrationality, the arbitrariness of our specific history, our myths, our masterpieces, and everything that cannot be efficiently calculated can dwell. This is probably a mathematical limitation, meaning a hard limitation, to which even a computer is subject (known in complexity as the polynomial hierarchy): it is difficult to create masterpieces.

Even if man completely disappears, even physically, and is replaced by another spiritual entity, and even if physics cracks all the secrets of physical space, and reaches a theory of everything, and science annihilates every secret in nature - spiritual secrets will still remain. Even a computer will find it difficult to create masterpieces, by their very definition as exceptional achievements, regardless of its computational ability. For example: even a computer will find it difficult to prove difficult theorems in mathematics. It will not be able to solve every problem and provide a beautiful proof for every hypothesis - because computationally this is too difficult a problem, which has only flashes of insight - but no method. It is possible that artificial intelligence will be able to write literary masterpieces that surpass the Bible, but still any computational ability will encounter difficulty in writing its own Bible. This is a problem that cannot be "known how to solve" (like for example knowing how to solve an equation), because it turns out that there is a fundamental mathematical gap between the ability to evaluate and judge a work - and the ability to create it (and in the language of the people: P!=NP).

Moreover, since masterpieces are such only in a certain cultural context, that is, only in the context of the past of the cultural tradition, even a computer will find it difficult to write new masterpieces in the tradition of the Bible, even if this tradition rises far above the Bible. The cultural tradition - it will be the ancient world and the primordial spiritual medium of a post-human world, and in it the secret doctrine of even a silicon creature can dwell, or the foundational myths of a quantum computer, or the sexuality of artificial intelligence, or (surprise, surprise!) - the religiosity of the superman. Thus, the circle of the process of secularization will reach its paradoxical end: like a snake biting its tail. And with this mythical image - we will end.

Culture and Literature


text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

Saturday night: A Theoretical Introduction to Dreams

An Alternative to Post-Humanism | Intentions as opposed to directions on one hand - and instructions on the other | Mathematical forces in the universe versus physical forces | The present is mediocrity (and defines the zero elevation line), the past is deep but the future is high | Before the entrance to the humanities: "No entry through this gate for those who haven't studied algorithms" | Setting philosophy's demands from science and technology

By: Wise Man of Chelm

The Dreamer Statue at the Tiger Spring (Source)

* The academic discussion of post-humanist ideology is impotent, shallow, and lacks vision, unable to express any future vision with specific content - it's not important because it can't say anything important about the important thing (the future). Dreams offer it an alternative - in their very ability to offer an alternative: to talk about the future in a creative and generative way. Dreams are capable of offering - and to philosophy they offer a new philosophical genre adapted to talking about the future (just as Wittgenstein offered aphoristic paragraphs, for example, to talk about language). Academia is capable of saying only two types of things: either unimportant things about important matters - or important things about unimportant matters, due to its fear of the future. The future is important - by definition (hence the above sentence translates to the inability to say something futuristic about the future). This paralyzing fear solidifies into a policing and silencing mechanism (mainly self-imposed) called criticism, which stifles importance and creativity. The dream, on the other hand, is the lowering of inhibition and its definition is the combination of the important and the creative. The seminar's goal is to answer the question that is always the most important (by definition) and therefore always avoided to be addressed directly (like being afraid to touch fire or see God): What is important? And what are the important things about the future?

* The dreams in the seminar are lists of intentions. An ethics of learning - not resistance and not blind promotion, but shaping. Technology is neither blind nor a force of nature. Its power to push the world (and thus accelerate it) is a learning force - like the power of interpretation or argumentation as part of Talmud study, or cultural power as part of studying the classics, or the power of literary creation. This is the internal dynamics of learning, as opposed to external attraction - which is called "interest". Such a force is more fundamental than a physical force, it is a mathematical force, like the force that drives evolution and refines it (against physics and entropy). It turns out that in the universe there are not only physical forces, but also spiritual forces - for example, an organizational-computational force, and this is the computer's power to execute an algorithm. Computation is a fundamental force in the universe, its carrier particles are information, and its field is mathematics. And a learning algorithm is not blind and deterministic, even if it is not human and is "algorithmic", but built on open choice. It is not true that the more basic a force is, the blinder it is, but rather the more external it is (like a person who succumbs to natural forces from outside, or fate). To remove the blindfold that creates the illusion of blindness, we need to show other learning possibilities open to us: alternative history, alternative network (for example: alternative social network). Dreams are the removal of the cover - they are vision. In darkness, one can see through a dream, because the dream is the spreading of an internal space with multiple possibilities, and therefore one can learn within it.

* What's important? A dream is not a goal, only an intention. Not to leave technological development without cultural development (the root cause of the Holocaust. And of the cultural holocaust - the Facebookiad). A dream is a dive, adding a dimension, not just breadth and forward: not to allow the fastest possible advancement of the world on a broad front to be everything, that's only two dimensions (and therefore superficial) - but to advance in the third dimension of depth, that is, of the inside. Everything within the framework of learning: not ideology (goal, end), and not religion (source, beginning), but also not nihilism (middle, present - the present is mediocrity! It is the definition of mediocrity) - but a learning method. Correct processes at the level of humanity. System-wide learning processes (including culture) - because learning belongs to the learner and does not take over from outside, so that technology does not become an external force and therefore a force of nature, and also not a force under our control outside of us and therefore political-manipulative, but "learning - always within the system". Just as the Torah becomes yours when you are a scholar, despite not being under your control, but because you have penetrated it and you are inside it. Organizational consulting for all of humanity - as a system. And this is the role of the philosopher: organizational consultant of humanity, and a teacher who helps it learn, and its strategist in the face of the deep future.

* That technology should not be the owner, but we should be at home in it - any intellectual in our time who is not at home in understanding technology is a joke. All the greats: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein - were at home in science and mathematics. And today it's important to add: computer science and information technology. Philosophy is a field built on mathematics. Just as it was written on the gates of Plato's Academy, today it should be written: No entry for those who haven't studied mathematics.

* The great lacuna in the world: due to lack of vision and technological dreaming, stemming from the failure of both philosophers and technologists, there is not enough concentrated research and development in spearheads that could change the world - levers of change and force multipliers - and instead a lot of focus on the new iPhone or a new feature on Facebook, or micro-tactical cultural engagement. Therefore, we need to map strategic directions for technological, social and cultural research and development. To map dreams for a world lacking vision, and therefore blind. This is what we'll do in the seminar. We'll give an example of how relevant philosophy should look, because due to the lack of serious engagement with the future, engagement with the future has become non-serious. Hence the importance of philosophy in raising the level of discussion, and in pointing out the failures of the current discussion, and above all: in identifying the fundamental points of change, where the paradigm will be replaced, as opposed to intra-paradigmatic changes. Just as philosophy investigated the principles of the world, so it must also investigate the principles of the future. To answer the question: What will constitute a fundamental change?

* The philosophy of everyday life in our time needs to demand from science knowledge to improve important decisions in life, and therefore needs to define what is the right data and what is the right metric, and not leave to scientists, for example, the definition of happiness, or other core definitions of human beings (which will constitute a cultural disaster, approaching us from the direction of brain sciences). From the public it needs to demand private funding of science: science should also be opened to crowdfunding, with everyone's participation, allowing scientists to engage in things that the public is interested in, and therefore we need a function of a public scientist. To the same extent, we also need a function of a philosophical scientist, who tries to realize the goals set by technological philosophy, such as the one that will be proposed in the seminar, before him. Thus, contrary to what happens in non-Nathanian schools, philosophy will stop being irrelevant, and science will also stop being culturally ignorant and promoting barbarism - which ultimately undermines it. The idea of a scientist ignorant of culture and a culturalist ignorant of science will lead to a superhuman intelligence lacking culture - that is, to the end of human culture. Therefore, it is important to fuse the technological ethos and the cultural ethos into one ethos - so that the world of the future will be like the ancient world.

Philosophy of the Future

source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Saturday night: A Theoretical Introduction to Dreams - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning73" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/dreamsriver.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Saturday night: A Theoretical Introduction to Dreams

An Alternative to Post-Humanism | Intentions as opposed to directions on one hand - and instructions on the other | Mathematical forces in the universe versus physical forces | The present is mediocrity (and defines the zero elevation line), the past is deep but the future is high | Before the entrance to the humanities: "No entry through this gate for those who haven't studied algorithms" | Setting philosophy's demands from science and technology

By: Wise Man of Chelm

The Dreamer Statue at the Tiger Spring  (Source)

The academic discussion of post-humanist ideology is impotent, shallow, and lacks vision, unable to express any future vision with specific content - it's not important because it can't say anything important about the important thing (the future). Dreams offer it an alternative - in their very ability to offer an alternative: to talk about the future in a creative and generative way. Dreams are capable of offering - and to philosophy they offer a new philosophical genre adapted to talking about the future (just as Wittgenstein offered aphoristic paragraphs, for example, to talk about language). Academia is capable of saying only two types of things: either unimportant things about important matters - or important things about unimportant matters, due to its fear of the future. The future is important - by definition (hence the above sentence translates to the inability to say something futuristic about the future). This paralyzing fear solidifies into a policing and silencing mechanism (mainly self-imposed) called criticism, which stifles importance and creativity. The dream, on the other hand, is the lowering of inhibition and its definition is the combination of the important and the creative. The seminar's goal is to answer the question that is always the most important (by definition) and therefore always avoided to be addressed directly (like being afraid to touch fire or see God): What is important? And what are the important things about the future?

The dreams in the seminar are lists of intentions. An ethics of learning - not resistance and not blind promotion, but shaping. Technology is neither blind nor a force of nature. Its power to push the world (and thus accelerate it) is a learning force - like the power of interpretation or argumentation as part of Talmud study, or cultural power as part of studying the classics, or the power of literary creation. This is the internal dynamics of learning, as opposed to external attraction - which is called "interest". Such a force is more fundamental than a physical force, it is a mathematical force, like the force that drives evolution and refines it (against physics and entropy). It turns out that in the universe there are not only physical forces, but also spiritual forces - for example, an organizational-computational force, and this is the computer's power to execute an algorithm. Computation is a fundamental force in the universe, its carrier particles are information, and its field is mathematics. And a learning algorithm is not blind and deterministic, even if it is not human and is "algorithmic", but built on open choice. It is not true that the more basic a force is, the blinder it is, but rather the more external it is (like a person who succumbs to natural forces from outside, or fate). To remove the blindfold that creates the illusion of blindness, we need to show other learning possibilities open to us: alternative history, alternative network (for example: alternative social network). Dreams are the removal of the cover - they are vision. In darkness, one can see through a dream, because the dream is the spreading of an internal space with multiple possibilities, and therefore one can learn within it.

What's important? A dream is not a goal, only an intention. Not to leave technological development without cultural development (the root cause of the Holocaust. And of the cultural holocaust - the Facebookiad). A dream is a dive, adding a dimension, not just breadth and forward: not to allow the fastest possible advancement of the world on a broad front to be everything, that's only two dimensions (and therefore superficial) - but to advance in the third dimension of depth, that is, of the inside. Everything within the framework of learning: not ideology (goal, end), and not religion (source, beginning), but also not nihilism (middle, present - the present is mediocrity! It is the definition of mediocrity) - but a learning method. Correct processes at the level of humanity. System-wide learning processes (including culture) - because learning belongs to the learner and does not take over from outside, so that technology does not become an external force and therefore a force of nature, and also not a force under our control outside of us and therefore political-manipulative, but "learning - always within the system". Just as the Torah becomes yours when you are a scholar, despite not being under your control, but because you have penetrated it and you are inside it. Organizational consulting for all of humanity - as a system. And this is the role of the philosopher: organizational consultant of humanity, and a teacher who helps it learn, and its strategist in the face of the deep future.

That technology should not be the owner, but we should be at home in it - any intellectual in our time who is not at home in understanding technology is a joke. All the greats: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein - were at home in science and mathematics. And today it's important to add: computer science and information technology. Philosophy is a field built on mathematics. Just as it was written on the gates of Plato's Academy, today it should be written: No entry for those who haven't studied mathematics.

The great lacuna in the world: due to lack of vision and technological dreaming, stemming from the failure of both philosophers and technologists, there is not enough concentrated research and development in spearheads that could change the world - levers of change and force multipliers - and instead a lot of focus on the new iPhone or a new feature on Facebook, or micro-tactical cultural engagement. Therefore, we need to map strategic directions for technological, social and cultural research and development. To map dreams for a world lacking vision, and therefore blind. This is what we'll do in the seminar. We'll give an example of how relevant philosophy should look, because due to the lack of serious engagement with the future, engagement with the future has become non-serious. Hence the importance of philosophy in raising the level of discussion, and in pointing out the failures of the current discussion, and above all: in identifying the fundamental points of change, where the paradigm will be replaced, as opposed to intra-paradigmatic changes. Just as philosophy investigated the principles of the world, so it must also investigate the principles of the future. To answer the question: What will constitute a fundamental change?

The philosophy of everyday life in our time needs to demand from science knowledge to improve important decisions in life, and therefore needs to define what is the right data and what is the right metric, and not leave to scientists, for example, the definition of happiness, or other core definitions of human beings (which will constitute a cultural disaster, approaching us from the direction of brain sciences). From the public it needs to demand private funding of science: science should also be opened to crowdfunding, with everyone's participation, allowing scientists to engage in things that the public is interested in, and therefore we need a function of a public scientist. To the same extent, we also need a function of a philosophical scientist, who tries to realize the goals set by technological philosophy, such as the one that will be proposed in the seminar, before him. Thus, contrary to what happens in non-Nathanian schools, philosophy will stop being irrelevant, and science will also stop being culturally ignorant and promoting barbarism - which ultimately undermines it. The idea of a scientist ignorant of culture and a culturalist ignorant of science will lead to a superhuman intelligence lacking culture - that is, to the end of human culture. Therefore, it is important to fuse the technological ethos and the cultural ethos into one ethos - so that the world of the future will be like the ancient world.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Caution: Fresh Paint - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning55" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/freshpaint.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Caution: Fresh Paint

A comparison between contemporary art and contemporary literature reveals the immense difficulty that still exists in the simple idea of coupling, which is the basis of the Zohar's ideology. The balance between content and form requires exceptional maturity and growth, because there is always a tendency to maximize one side instead of maximizing the meaning - which is their coupling. Therefore, artistic practice can actually help people improve in true coupling - and in love

By: As Difficult as the Splitting of the Red Sea is the Coupling of a Person

What is the value of spilled paint compared to a painting?  (Source)

Why is the idea of coupling so difficult to internalize? Why does love require so much maturity and growth? Just as it's difficult for artists to internalize that they need to care not only for content, or only for form, but for both. To care for two things. Art is the production of meaning, for the viewer, and in meaning there are two parts: the content of the meaning and its form. Beautiful form without content, empty rhetoric - or a cry of the deepest meaning, I love you, without form - this is neither art nor a love poem. That is - it's easy to focus only on content or only on form, to see one thing as the be-all and end-all. But the ability to care for two things requires compromise, acceptance, and humility that are lacking in the individual, and are contrary to the tradition of unity in Western culture, and of the brain that focuses on one thing at a time (biologically).

Focusing on two things already requires attention switching. A hedgehog knows one big thing, but a snake knows two things. Coupling two things - that's the message of the Zohar. Now, when there is an essential connection between the two things, content and form, or an innovative connection (not a lack of connection) then it's important art. This is a truer and deeper coupling. In a language game there are two things: first to play by the rules, and second to play beautifully, to play well. The rules of the game are not enough. Excessive preoccupation with content or form without balance between them is an artistic mistake. Rococo and Realism - excessive preoccupation with form, and poor content. Medieval art and modern art - excessive preoccupation with content, and poor form. And in contemporary art there is sometimes such a severe disruption in language that it's not clear if there is content or form, meaning it doesn't get through to the viewer, doesn't convey meaning. For example, in abstract art there is a complete lack of content and also poor form, and in conceptual art there is little and poor content and poor to non-existent form. Therefore, these are particularly shallow forms.

In contrast, in literature there is a limit on lack of meaning. Because it needs to be read, and books need to be sold, and in cinema there is an audience. Meaning the simple person is the buyer and therefore there is a limit on the lack of meaning. But in plastic arts, a glance is enough for its consumption and therefore there is no limit, and it has deteriorated into meaninglessness more than any field. A huge bubble. And like any bubble, it will of course burst at some point and leave all its investors with their pants down.

In literature too there is a fossilized representation of meaning, through realism, which has too little content. Therefore, a more fantastic form is needed in literature, like Kafka, to express more meaningful content. Or alternatively, the expression of more meaningful content in realism. But in painting, more realism is actually needed. That is, it's not true that everything is synchronized between fields. There are different constraints on different fields and therefore trends reach fruition at different balance points, like the language trend in painting and literature. Literature - too commercial towards the masses. Art - too commercial towards the elite. Literature - too accessible and flattering. Art - the opposite. The act of love requires both emotion and technical ability, both content and form, and that's why so few succeed in it.

Philosophy of the Future


domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Couples Therapy: The Damage Philosophy Caused to Psychology (Part 1) - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature55" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/thekiss.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Couples Therapy: The Damage Philosophy Caused to Psychology (Part 1)

What is the secret of psychology's success in the 20th century? What is the secret of philosophy's failure in the 20th century? A philosophical treatment of psychological treatment, and finding the source of pain in the mouth - because barking philosophy doesn't bite. Therefore, there is a need for root treatment - in the philosophy of teeth - to heal the damages of the philosophy of language

By: Countertransference

Spiritual union: Mouth-to-mouth treatment (Source)

The Psychology of Language

Why do couples therapies fail so often? Why is it so difficult and exhausting to treat two people (much more than treating one)? Is it because treating one is more effective (not really) or perhaps more genuine and deeper - in its delving into the single psyche - and therefore should be focused on? Or is it precisely treating two that encounters the real challenges of the real world in the therapy room, with both sides of the coin, which are easier to avoid in treatment as an isolated atom, with a one-sided view, than in treating a molecule? And if we compare this to treating sick intellectual fields - is it better to treat and delve into one field, and penetrate the depth of the problem, or perhaps in couples therapy, which examines the connection between two disciplines and treats it, we will discover the depth of the real problem, and get to the root of the neurosis? When the two fields are philosophy and psychology, it seems that this couple relationship should be sent for urgent therapy.

How did 20th-century philosophy, the century in which psychology grew, influence psychology? Is this influence inevitable, due to the very nature of psychology (which didn't grow in this century for nothing!), or is it merely coincidental, resulting from a historical combination of circumstances that created psychological treatment in its current form, and therefore one can imagine a completely different type of treatment? Do the psychological conceptions of couples and individual therapy stem from an unsuccessful coupling of psychology itself, which found itself with a domineering, and sometimes toxic, partner who deeply influenced its own personality, to the point of castration and self-negation? What is actually the conception of relationship that underlies couples therapy - and therapy in general, which includes therapist and patient - in the psychological world, and is another conception possible?

Not surprisingly for the 20th century, the century of the linguistic and communicative turn, linguistic psychologists conceptualized relationships as "connections" and couplehood as a "connection", and the secret of couplehood and relationships as "communication, communication, communication". The cure is through talking, storytelling and retelling, conceptualization and reconceptualization, and emotional expression - couples learn to talk to each other, express their needs, conduct constructive and positive communication, verbalize feelings, give different words (he's not angry, he's insecure), create secure attachment, build a new emotional language (don't say to the other "you're not..." and accuse, but say "I feel that..."), share endlessly, "tell the other that I just want you to hear me!" and so on - because the cure is, of course, in the image of the treatment, and the treatment is, after all, linguistic. Let's talk about it. All these belong to the paradigm of the psychology of language.

But what can be done when in practice, and as known to anyone not born yesterday, talk mostly doesn't help - which doesn't change the therapeutic example one bit. Who hasn't heard, known, and seen that talk is actually barely effective, that it gives advantage to the more verbal side (and often - the more manipulative), that people simply mislead, lie and talk nonsense (and the attempt to find meaning in them is meaningless, and therefore poor in intellectual value, like any attempt to find a signature in noise), that people's speech is very biased in their favor from the outset (the personal therapist only thinks he's getting some picture of reality, because he's only getting one side), and as a result, treatments take years (until the problem resolves itself, because time is a great healer, or the patient gives up - and then, what can be done, he left the treatment! It's his fault).

As always in cases of basic methodological failures, namely paradigmatic failures, any attempt to examine them within the paradigm will assume what is sought: in any case, only people who already believe in talk over actions and learning are drawn to therapy in the first place. And as for the results of the treatments themselves (which are ostensibly their justification), they have no natural endpoint - the treatment, in principle, continues forever (there is always an inverse relationship between treatment effectiveness and its duration). And the illusion of depth in treatment simply stems from time, that is, from the development (learning!) that time creates, and not from the linguistic treatment itself. But how attractive this illusion is to therapists and patients alike - who continue to walk together in the wake of (lost) time, and imagine that the treatment moved life, and not vice versa (and who will know? The placebo effect here is identical to the effect of non-causal correlation).

The same psychological "deepening", even if perhaps without result (and point), is often quoted as a "cultural" or "spiritual" argument for treatment. But unsurprisingly, at least to anyone who has read a little literature pretending to be deep (that is, a little of our contemporary "psychological" novels), there is nothing deep in "deep" talk, and the cultural and spiritual damage is even more severe than the therapeutic one, in turning the person himself into language. It is of course flattering to the patient to think that removing the shells through dealing with shells - in language - will reveal within his onion sparks from the infinite light, and his "deep" soul, as if secrets for the initiated are hidden within him. Because, "thanks to the treatment", he suddenly turned from "you're a person" into a divine chariot, and even more than that - into a sacred text (for they expound on him various interpretations, whether by way of hint or by way of secret, and suddenly there is meaning in him, requiring interpretation, and not just simple meaning). Psychological treatment is the (last?) place where a secular person can ensure that he will be worshipped, that is, that he will be treated (for payment) as a religious or artistic text. Hence the attraction to psychoanalysis: the "I" becomes literature. Man seeks meaning. All the worship of treatment confidentiality is designed to create a world of secret - in a world where there is no secret. Yes, there is a special secret in you (which is similar to, and at its root identical to, a million other secrets according to the theory - hence the obsession with theory: it is an industrial production line for secrets according to a template. It is the "deep" and "esoteric" language. Kabbalah for the masses).

The Psychology of Learning

Only a historical accident caused psychology to become fixed in its current linguistic form - which is not its natural form, and therefore not "correct": this is the psychology that was simply born in the wrong century. Couplehood is of course not a connection and not a conversation - the correct conceptualization of it is learning. Therefore, it is expressed in sex - because it is a medium of learning. Sex is not body language (or "non-verbal communication" - an oxymoron that expresses the poverty of the linguistic paradigm, in which even the action itself is perceived as a sign). It is not meant to convey "messages" (it's a very poor practice to convey messages to the other side through sexuality), just as (good) art has no "message". And therefore couplehood is also expressed in children - because they are a medium of learning. One who thinks that his children are a medium for conveying content, for example ideology or religion or morality or values or lessons for the future - is the linguistic parent. This is in contrast to the learning parent who understands that his role is to create a learning creature, that is, an innovator, that is, a person who is an innovation in the world, the like of which has never been. Not (another) one who lives within the language and framework (which is usually a social framework), and is trapped within it (there is no private language!), and skilled in using it for his needs (because use is meaning - let's think about the American slickness that speaks fluently), and knows how to operate the world through the linguistic medium (the manipulator, the politician of language), but one who innovates within the system - one who creates new meaning. Not one who lives according to the law of language (and the Wittgensteinian conception of language is a completely halakhic conception, as a system of meaning that derives from activity within it - a social form of life), but one who innovates in Torah.

Therefore, the sexual relations of the philosophy of language, which are medium and conversation ("deep", "emotional", "intimate") deteriorate and become boring - because there is no study hall without innovation, and in fact - depth is innovation, and intimacy is precisely creativity (as any Talmud learner will testify - intimacy is the ability to innovate without fear of the subject, and from a direct connection to the Torah, as a household member, within it). And therefore it is also boring and frustrating to raise children through language (do this, don't do that, stop fighting, be quiet, respect, eat, sleep) - because such a child has no goal and no purpose (but there is a lot of communication with him, without purpose, because after all we were told that communication is the key, what wonder that communication deteriorates into shouting, cursing and insolence: because there are only language actions). No one has ever planted in such a child the inner seed of the soul: the purpose of man is innovation. Instead of being a child of the rabbi's house - he is a child of mother. Psychology has created a whole generation of infants - with its emphasis on infancy as the most important period in a person's life (instead of knowing, and it is known in every culture with knowledge, that the most important period is old age, in which a person is supposed to reach the peak of his intellectual achievements, and therefore it is precisely then that he is obligated to teach the grandchildren: a basic grandfather who is basic to the soul no less than mother and father faces).

Is There a "Language of the Soul"?

Anyone who believes in the existence of a "language of the soul", that subjugation of the soul to language, should ask himself whether he also believes in a "language of the spirit", or a "language of the soul". Why does "language of emotion" sound more logical to him than "language of intelligence", "language of attention", "language of fine motor skills", or "language of consciousness"? The idea that there is some mediating medium between two systems (for example, parts in the soul, or people in relationships, or the therapist and the patient), and the correction of this medium is the cure - is the basic idea of the psychology of language and communication. This psychology is based on a mutual illusion of the therapist and the patient, that the change in language is the cause of learning processes, while it is the product of them (and certainly not their important product). Trying to treat language is like political correction through political correctness - trying to fix the inside of a system through its external and visible boundary (its "language"). The result is a gap between the boundary and the inside, that is, hypocrisy, illusion (mainly self-illusion), inefficiency and inauthenticity. And depth of shell.

The inherent gap between "the language of the system" (for example, "political language"), and the way the system actually works and develops (that is, learns), always feeds a lot of verbal confrontations and "discussions" and talk shows and empty salon chatter, in which people talk about what they would do (if they were prime ministers...), and in psychology every such "discussion" costs 450 shekels. But it is not the soul that is treated on the couch - but the language. And as in politics, talk without responsibility is worth exactly as much as authority without responsibility. Seemingly, dealing with the language of the system is not very terrible, but the focus on language comes at the expense of focusing on learning, which does not deal with mediation and medium, but with the inside. The psychology of learning understands that even fluent, honest and intensive communication with your partner or child or yourself (deep psychological awareness, in its own eyes) does not guarantee learning success, and that sometimes the linguistic analysis succeeds - but the poem dies. The brainwashed people of psychology, just like the brainwashed people of any other ideology or discipline, speak like brainwashed scarecrows - but full of interiority, which is empty straw and chaff - in fluent psychology. They are "precise", identify "patterns", complex and aware and sensitive to the point of terror (to themselves) and therefore capable of analyzing themselves to the point of parody (and of course justifying any villainy or stupidity or laziness - that is: learning failures).

The psychologists themselves are of course the best at this - what wonder that often their personal lives look like the cobbler's painful and barefoot leg (ask a psychologist's child or partner what that's like sometime). In fact, the "moral" barrier that psychology created between the psychologist's life and the patient's life protects the psychologist even more than the patient, because if the patient knew the personal life of the average psychologist, and his actual mental abilities (and not in theory, in the treatment room, where it's easy to be "wise", when there's no connection between such "wisdom" and action), he would lose all authority and credibility and credibility (in general: people choose a profession not because they are good at it, but because it occupies them, and above all - deals with them. And people with psychological problems go to psychology. After you know a representative sample of therapists - you can never go to therapy again). But this famous barrier, which has become so self-evident, already causes any demand from psychology to work (yes, to work) in psychologists' lives to seem to us like an ad hominem attack. Does it work or doesn't it work?

The ridiculous idea that there is some professionalism of the soul - caused deep damage to the very idea of the soul, and to the very idea of depth (and it particularly harmed literature, which the psychology of language contaminated even more than the everyday clichés that walk among us, and pour out on "the treatment"). Only a complete misunderstanding of the learning essence of man - of his being a system of innovations, whose breath of life is innovation, creates thinking that there is such a thing as the human soul at all, with a certain and characteristic and timeless structure, which is not dependent on the period - that is, on learning development. The psychological type that coils up, who invests all his innovation ability in excuses and duplicated and stereotypical psychological insights (that is: templates that fit everything), is exactly the patient in whom the treatment succeeded the most (to become a brain parasite), but took out of him the soul in the soul: innovation. Language is not the right way to touch and treat the soul, because language's hand is too short to express the soul (great literature is needed to even try - not something accessible to the linguistic ability of the average therapist and patient). The language of speech is simply too crude and stereotypical a tool for deepening into a person. What cannot be spoken about - must be learned.

Innovation Precedes Essence

The innovative essence of man is what prevents brainwashing the next generations, and ending human learning with a final verdict, as certain ideologies, religions, and societies have tried. The rebellion of adolescence or adulthood is not caused by an Oedipal complication with the father, but by human nature that wants to innovate - in relation to any framework in which it grew (and if it's not possible to innovate within it, because it's too dogmatic - then against it). This is also exactly the reason why fashions and period changes exist, even in neutral areas like art or clothing, and this universal phenomenon does not skip any culture (including ancient ceramics). Fashion is created from the innovation drive even in areas where there is no progress but only change, where there are always pioneers and those who adopt the innovation (psychology is also such a fashion, which is already going out of style, despite its worship of narcissism). The drive for innovation is essential even in the phenomenon of migration, thanks to which the human species spread throughout the world and did not remain a local species like other species, contrary to the image of migration out of distress. But psychology will always present distress as justification, because it was born as a medical therapeutic field, meaning it needs to find the disease, and fix something that broke - while innovation is not a disease but a healthy learning tendency, and not a trauma in the past but an opportunity in the future. But the psychologist will always turn the gaze to the past, because he was educated on the doctrine of the original sin of the soul (which no woman-born escapes). Therefore his intervention, if it succeeds in sinking the patient in the past as well, will become anti-future and therefore anti-learning. It is not correction we lack - but creation.

And if psychology does create a mental creation, this creation will be infected with the disease of complexity and complication, meaning it will be inherently sterile. It's true that the lowest creations derive their development from a simple and simplistic template (for example ideology or kitsch - and this is the connection between these two tendencies), like for example a formulaic romantic novel. But even literary works built on complexity, and on it their glory, are almost never truly innovative, because they are built on complication, and on the collapse of the human brain in excess variables and data and nuances, until an illusion of depth is created (simply out of impossibility of perception: it's incomprehensible). Complexity too is a formula, which only seems more sophisticated and wise, but is usually just more pretentious and not really wisdom: give each character and each characterization an ambivalent/dialectical/opposite side with complex connections as a fabric and reversals (don't forget irony!) and on the other hand internal rhyming between elements and of course external rhyming with masterpieces (correspondences are cultural depth, aren't they?). Or be an impressionist and add to each color the opposite color in the color table, and more and more sub-shades, until you create an imaginary richness in painting or book. Imagery? Complex! Language? Complex! Rhyming? Complex! Choreography? Complex! Palette? Complex! Composition? Complex! And so on. The ability to weave a complex novel is not really the most important in literature (despite the majority of importance in which it perceives itself), and so is the ability to create complex philosophy, or complex psychology, and so on - and it stands precisely in polar opposition to the ability to innovate, which actually strives for maximum simplicity. One who truly innovates - does not complicate. Complication usually throws smoke in the reader's eyes, and hides from his eyes the lack of essential innovation, which is replaced by an innovation mechanism, that is, complication as an industry and a complexity machine, as a method. Therefore, the important is usually simple to the point of almost ridicule (how didn't I think of this before?), precisely because it is so basic (paradigm shift). While complication within the paradigm, which creates the illusory "volume" for the creation, is usually devoid of any real contribution and uninteresting in the long run. It is a variation - and not a new melody, and therefore it is a demonstration of mastery of past abilities and not creation of the future. And such a complication phenomenon is exactly psychology, and therefore creates creations in its image, which is of course called "psychological". Every creator knows that creating complexity is a lazy and uninspired action in relation to innovation. True innovation in an issue comes to give a very simple and principled explanation, and therefore abstract and deep, while a complicated explanation has little explanatory value, and only pretends to be deep. Complexity - which psychology has turned into a value (like the value of sensitivity and the value of communication, etc.) in psychological ideology - is ultimately uninteresting, and therefore we learn very little from it. What did reading the complicated novel contribute to us? What did we learn from it? That life is complicated? That man is complicated? That everything is complicated? These are actually not complicated insights at all, and as deep as the peel of nothing. While psychology sees the peak of depth - in the complex.

But apparently the greatest moral destruction caused by psychological ideology is not to aesthetics - but to morality. Perhaps the greatest damage psychology has done to the soul is turning hedonism into its self-evident (of course under the excuse of "reducing suffering", and less for the reason of "increasing pleasure", although in practice, in therapeutic praxis, it promotes absolute selfishness, and even narcissism - because it is committed only to the patient himself, after all he is the client, and not to social-systemic learning as a whole, and therefore "teaches" that this is how it should be). But reducing suffering as a goal in itself (or increasing satisfaction), are symptomatic treatments that harm the treatment of the disease itself, because suffering is only a symptom of lack of learning, like pain to the body, and satisfaction and pleasure and interest and meaning are only a symptom of learning. Just as certain drugs reduce learning by replacing dopamine in the brain, so psychology, if it succeeds in acting against the healthy soul, reduces learning by reducing and forgetting mental suffering. After all, suffering has a deep purpose - that you learn. And this purpose is built into you evolutionarily, exactly like pain for the body (suffering is the learning, that is, mental, equivalent of pain). Pleasure also has no meaning outside of learning (therefore - there is no pleasure without interest, even sexual pleasure, even food needs to be interesting! And not just nutritious, otherwise the human soul, unlike the animal soul, loathes it). Psychology confirms to the individual his individualism, from its very treatment of the human soul in the singular, and therefore flatters his pride (and not infrequently also his stupidity), without any demand from him for creative innovation in the world. All that matters is that he enjoys (mental-emotional pleasure of course, as if this is superior pleasure to physical bestiality) and does not suffer (again, mental suffering, pure and refined, Jesus on the cross of the soul!). But learning innovation is more important than any pleasure and any suffering - and in fact they are only tools, and it is the purpose. But this hedonistic stance of things, centered on pleasure and suffering, intensifies suffering - and reduces pleasure (because they are the important things - and there is no meaning outside of them). While that meaning, that of innovation and learning - is more basic than the soul itself and the emotion itself. It is the deepest motivation of the soul and the brain, and therefore also the deepest pleasure and suffering. There is nothing more terrible for a person than the loss of learning relevance, the loss of all innovation (this is actually prison! And therefore it is an effective punishment, because of the learning suffering, which is in being taken out of society and the learning system, for there is no other special suffering in it). And there is nothing good and uplifting for a person like innovation and learning - there is no pleasure like the pleasure of learning innovation (which is not the common trivial innovation, of chasing novelties and changes like chasing pleasures). But psychology, whose success is the creation of robots of happiness and "well being" and "mental health" and "emotional expression" (narcissistic to the extreme like immature poetry, and actually the great incubator of immature poetry) - this psychology is exactly what turns man into a happiness machine, and not a learning machine. It is the ideological prison of the soul, which has created countless people who see happiness (that is: pleasure) and not innovation as the great achievement of the soul. The literary analysis of the soul succeeded - and the patient died.

Is Psychology Capable of Learning?

After all, even the most empathetic psychologist does not really act from a non-learning motive - the voyeurism into the patient's life is much more interesting (but denied. Because his sex life is important), so is the manipulation and aggressive power for "beneficial" influence (within which actually pulsates the creative drive, because after all in the clinic nothing is created, only maintained). Psychologists love so much to try to innovate in psychological language because they themselves are trapped in it (and therefore their innovations multiply and flourish like mutations in a tumor). After all, the psychologist is also human - and without innovation in his work, that soul mechanic will become completely bored. And what will he then say to the patient? You're boring me? After all, those who suffer from lack of care pay me for artificial care, and those who fail in a learning relationship try to create with me a verbal, alternative and artificial relationship. A relationship that has only conversation, only language - perhaps the ideal relationship from a psychological point of view, because it's all containment, emotional communication and mental confessions. It's all talk! And how much easier everything is when it's all talk. The therapist goes home and the patient is left with the mud, and this is what will replace his parents and fix their many flaws, they - who had to treat him outside the clinic, and outside private language, in a real learning and growth process. While the therapist is the one who specializes in managing inauthentic and one-way relationships, which harms first and foremost himself. Because an unequal stance where only one side is supposed to learn and the other is supposed to be the teacher - is anti-learning. Good learning is done in partnership, but your psychologist is not a real friend, because your psychologist is not your friend. And even if your friend is your psychologist - he is not a real friend. What turns a friend into a psychologist is exactly this: the one-sidedness. Therefore your partner cannot compete with the sensitivity of the psychologist, because this is two-sided, that is, real. Here you are really required to learn, and not just to dig.

And what about the development of psychology itself, maybe learning takes place there? Unfortunately, exactly what happened to academia in the humanities happened to psychology (hence the academization of psychological discourse): discourse took over it, instead of learning. Academia today is trapped in its language, in its sterile discourse (no longer need for the castrated), in "publications" and "citations" as the be-all and end-all, in its internal language (which has become jargon), in discussions to which one travels to discuss discussions that deal with discussions - that is, completely trapped in the philosophy of language - although its natural and fertile and sexual philosophy should have been learning. That's why it's so boring, because the distancing from learning and innovation is a distancing from interest. In academic language - it's almost impossible to say anything interesting, and therefore anyone who has something interesting to say flees from it. In general, it's almost impossible to innovate any significant innovation in a "language system" (like academia), because language is built precisely on lack of innovation, on obedience to norms - to the rule, as Wittgenstein explains. And after all, the rule is related to the general, hence the opposition to private language, but every innovation begins as a private language - everything essential said for the first time is exactly the birth of a private (that is, new) language, and therefore creativity in general language is necessarily conformist and not principled, that is "complicative". And this is exactly what happened to academia, that the philosophy of language was the worst thing for it, precisely because it is vulnerable to turning writing into language ideology, instead of learning ideology. So what do they actually learn in psychology today? The psychological language. All in all, they learn to speak in a certain language, and if you babble in it fluently (and don't dare to say something of value = to really innovate) - a psychologist is born. Just like an academic is born when he learns to babble bibliographically and in footnotes (that is, precisely in the most tedious and anal aspects of his language, in its grammar as poverty grammar). And therefore the intellectual (=learning) value of academic discussion tends to zero over time, because learning is subordinate to language (instead of the opposite). The reason for the death of philosophy is its academization, but in its death, like in a plague, it infected many other fields of knowledge with its disease: the mouth as hooves. Therefore, only a revival of philosophy outside academia will be able to inject new blood into the humanities - because philosophy is the heart of the world of spirit, and from the renewal of the heart the soul also draws.

To Part B

Culture and Literature