text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

Wednesday: Economic Dreams

Learning Economy | Money as Reinforcement for Synapses and as a Change in Network Connection Strength | Algo-Communism | Learning Culture vs. Consumer Culture | The Economy's Transition to Infinitesimal Amounts of Money and from There to a Continuous Flow Economy | The Mathematical Need for a State is the Basis of the Social Contract

By: Addicted Gambler

When Money Dreams of Man - Instead of the Opposite (Source)

* In the learning economy, learning has value, and more than that: the definition of value is created through learning - learning as value. Because the value of something is created from the learning invested in it, and not reduced to the work or money invested in it. Money is a way to quantify learning. Hence, the abolition of ownership of the algorithms themselves, and ownership is only of the learning. Therefore, there is compensation for the algorithm in two types of value: 1. Use of the algorithm itself in royalties (learning value), due to the resources invested in learning it. 2. Sending pleasure instead of money, like likes. The second value can be consumable, with a limited supply per time, and therefore not intended for accumulation. For example, there can be one-way fading money (new possibilities created in digital money) - and therefore its value is in passing it on, to whom you appreciated what they did, like feedback in a neural network. This way you can send money that is reputation.

* Algo-communism will be the revival of communism. Its meaning will be the central management of a state through a central algorithm, which weighs data on a huge scale, far above human capability, and distributes the budget using prediction and optimization, and allows not only an annual budget but a continuous one. This will be neo-communism, after post-capitalism, and people will be driven by competitive motivations not necessarily related to money, but definitely driving people, according to behavioral economics (like gaming and social motivations). In the economy of the future, basic needs will be provided for all (the first step will be basic income for all), and it will be socially unacceptable to consume more than that - and not respectable. The excess money of the rich will go to investment and donations, and only thus will become honor, because consumption will become a disgrace. Status will be standing up to the ethos of volunteering and giving charity and contribution. In general, it may be that in an economy where everyone is provided with the same basic resources at a good level, it will be possible to use money only for donation, and not for luxuries, and payment for profit purposes will not be possible. Because donation or investment means turning money into learning and development and life, while consumption means turning it into matter and killing it. And therefore, money as we know it today is outlawed, with all its problems.

* The capital market will gradually open completely - to all types of property. Instead of ownership (shares), it will be possible to buy royalties, for example to buy intellectual property, or percentages of future work of a person (if they want to raise money), or from a country, or from a work of art. The ethos will change: against consumption (present) - for investment (future). Finally, the law will allow algorithms that earn money (meaning they own the money) and that invest in the economy, until it will be possible to give algorithms all the financial matter and release humans from it. And humans will no longer have money - only algorithms - and they will drive the economy and be the capital owners. And thus jealousy and protectionism will cease.

* Work is a product with negative value, and therefore one receives money for it. The economy is becoming composed of fragments, many transactions with value approaching zero, for example information, or negative value approaching zero, for example advertisements (biased information). This will also happen to work, with mini-royalties on the product, and mini-royalties in every purchase of the company's product, which pass to the worker. And this includes measuring how much the organization profited from each activity, and data-based management, without positions, only projects. The manager receives the money and also gives the salary, not the organization, and can hire as he sees fit. In the world of work, there will be a transition to more and more human programming roles, and in the end, all humans will be managers, and computers will be the slave class, as in the classical world. The moment the average person can program the computer - that is, the moment the computer is able to learn what to do from the average person - this will be a revolution in human-machine relations from instructions to instruction.

* We need algorithms for finding work, profession, housing, educational institution, like algorithms for matchmaking, mediated by the state. The state will be perceived as responsible for the neutrality and security of databases, and in fact its justification will stem from algorithmic needs: the advantage of concentrating information and its availability in one place, and the ability to overcome game theory failures that stem from local optimization (each individual for themselves) that is opposed to global. Algorithms that maximize the good of society versus those that maximize the good of the individual - this is the great economic debate, and this is how the struggle between left and right will be understood in the future - a struggle between two levels of analysis.

Philosophy of the Future

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Wednesday: Economic 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-learning77" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/moneydream.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

Wednesday: Economic Dreams

Learning Economy | Money as Reinforcement for Synapses and as a Change in Network Connection Strength | Algo-Communism | Learning Culture vs. Consumer Culture | The Economy's Transition to Infinitesimal Amounts of Money and from There to a Continuous Flow Economy | The Mathematical Need for a State is the Basis of the Social Contract

By: Addicted Gambler

When Money Dreams of Man - Instead of the Opposite (Source)

In the learning economy, learning has value, and more than that: the definition of value is created through learning - learning as value. Because the value of something is created from the learning invested in it, and not reduced to the work or money invested in it. Money is a way to quantify learning. Hence, the abolition of ownership of the algorithms themselves, and ownership is only of the learning. Therefore, there is compensation for the algorithm in two types of value: 1. Use of the algorithm itself in royalties (learning value), due to the resources invested in learning it. 2. Sending pleasure instead of money, like likes. The second value can be consumable, with a limited supply per time, and therefore not intended for accumulation. For example, there can be one-way fading money (new possibilities created in digital money) - and therefore its value is in passing it on, to whom you appreciated what they did, like feedback in a neural network. This way you can send money that is reputation.

Algo-communism will be the revival of communism. Its meaning will be the central management of a state through a central algorithm, which weighs data on a huge scale, far above human capability, and distributes the budget using prediction and optimization, and allows not only an annual budget but a continuous one. This will be neo-communism, after post-capitalism, and people will be driven by competitive motivations not necessarily related to money, but definitely driving people, according to behavioral economics (like gaming and social motivations). In the economy of the future, basic needs will be provided for all (the first step will be basic income for all), and it will be socially unacceptable to consume more than that - and not respectable. The excess money of the rich will go to investment and donations, and only thus will become honor, because consumption will become a disgrace. Status will be standing up to the ethos of volunteering and giving charity and contribution. In general, it may be that in an economy where everyone is provided with the same basic resources at a good level, it will be possible to use money only for donation, and not for luxuries, and payment for profit purposes will not be possible. Because donation or investment means turning money into learning and development and life, while consumption means turning it into matter and killing it. And therefore, money as we know it today is outlawed, with all its problems.

The capital market will gradually open completely - to all types of property. Instead of ownership (shares), it will be possible to buy royalties, for example to buy intellectual property, or percentages of future work of a person (if they want to raise money), or from a country, or from a work of art. The ethos will change: against consumption (present) - for investment (future). Finally, the law will allow algorithms that earn money (meaning they own the money) and that invest in the economy, until it will be possible to give algorithms all the financial matter and release humans from it. And humans will no longer have money - only algorithms - and they will drive the economy and be the capital owners. And thus jealousy and protectionism will cease.

Work is a product with negative value, and therefore one receives money for it. The economy is becoming composed of fragments, many transactions with value approaching zero, for example information, or negative value approaching zero, for example advertisements (biased information). This will also happen to work, with mini-royalties on the product, and mini-royalties in every purchase of the company's product, which pass to the worker. And this includes measuring how much the organization profited from each activity, and data-based management, without positions, only projects. The manager receives the money and also gives the salary, not the organization, and can hire as he sees fit. In the world of work, there will be a transition to more and more human programming roles, and in the end, all humans will be managers, and computers will be the slave class, as in the classical world. The moment the average person can program the computer - that is, the moment the computer is able to learn what to do from the average person - this will be a revolution in human-machine relations from instructions to instruction.

We need algorithms for finding work, profession, housing, educational institution, like algorithms for matchmaking, mediated by the state. The state will be perceived as responsible for the neutrality and security of databases, and in fact its justification will stem from algorithmic needs: the advantage of concentrating information and its availability in one place, and the ability to overcome game theory failures that stem from local optimization (each individual for themselves) that is opposed to global. Algorithms that maximize the good of society versus those that maximize the good of the individual - this is the great economic debate, and this is how the struggle between left and right will be understood in the future - a struggle between two levels of analysis.

Philosophy of the Future


source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Degeneration of the Nation (Part 2): How Was Culture Corrupted? - 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&literature63" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/chat.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

The Degeneration of the Nation (Part 2): How Was Culture Corrupted?

Where did the late Amnon Navot err in his fight against corruption? How can culture be restored to culture? And is it possible that Maayan Eitan is a student of Yitzhak Laor? The cat as the future of humanity - doesn't leave the house, doesn't connect, doesn't bark, doesn't push its nose but raises it, yet on the other hand is wonderfully curious, has many souls, independent and mischievous - from head to tail

By: The Face of the Generation is Like the Face of the Cat

The circle returns again - which you abandoned in vain: Circularity as the enemy of felinity (Source)

Why are all cultural institutions deteriorating, while natural sciences are not? Because of the loss of the evaluation function. What can be easily corrupted - is corrupted (plastic arts are the most extreme example), and what less - less. For what is corruption? Sabotage of the evaluation function. For example, when a judge or decision-maker receives an envelope, or when an editor makes a decision for non-professional reasons (therefore Tzipper is corrupt just like Bibi - this is the secret of their soul connection). Corruption can also be in society as a whole, for example if the evaluation function for politicians' performances becomes unprofessional, or for cultural works. A person becomes corrupt in their private life when their evaluation function is destroyed, and hence there can also be sexual, hedonistic or financial corruption - and addiction is the peak of a person's corruption. And today we live in a corrupt culture.

But no one can bribe the future. Corruption is only in the present, when the evaluator himself is evaluated by the evaluated, meaning it stems from circularity: I like the decision-maker and he likes me. Every such social circle is a small corruption, and therefore Facebook corrupts its participants (I have never liked anyone. Even when I greatly appreciated their writing - I restrained myself). Corruption is favoritism - and what is Facebook if not a platform of faces. Levinas's ideal has turned into a dystopia. When I see posts mutually praising between two cultural figures (for example: a curator and an artist. Or: a critic and a writer), it always causes me revulsion, just like the social corruption party called a wedding, where the check you deposited is supposed to return to you in the future: write for me and I'll write for you. On Facebook, unlike in the past, these things are done in broad daylight, and since it does not disinfect anything, they become the way things are supposed to be done legitimately under the sun, and not just in the dark.

Populist corruption is actually when there is a feedback loop that is too short and too tight between the leader and the people (the secret of Bibi's power is the secret of his weakness), and cultural corruption often stems precisely from genuine mutual appreciation, which quickly deteriorates into cutting corners. Let's recall here the first lesson in graph theory: a network is a structure of connections that has circles, while a hierarchical tree is a network that has no circles, and therefore a clear tree structure can be created from it - from top to bottom. If so, how can we break the circle of corruption, which stems from the very structure of the network?

When the utopia of creation in anonymity and hiding faces and from social distance is still far from us, there is only one way to create a hierarchy that is completely unidirectional, that is - with direction and incorruptible. For this purpose we must rely on actual physical unidirectionality, which no social structure can overcome, and this is the unidirectionality of the time axis. As long as it is not possible to jump forward in time, and bribe the critic from the future, the future is the only objective evaluator, who will not recognize anyone - and therefore will not accept bribes. Many indeed try to bribe the future in the politics of authority relations, raising heirs, nurturing a group, and so on - but all this holds up maybe one generation. And time is the number one enemy of corruption, and its disinfecting light is seven times stronger than the light of the sun, because it is not light, but darkness: the good darkness of forgetting everything that is not worthy of remembrance.

Therefore, people who are desperate from the corruption of the present (for example from Bibi) turn to the judgment of history. Because justice is indeed slow, but today even this is less and less - because history itself is accelerating. The extensive cultural forgetting of our days is the best sign of the efficiency of justice and its necessity, and frightens only those who have something to fear (about themselves). And there is a lot to forget. All of Facebook, for example, will be forgotten by the future. All non-scientific academic research, written in jargon, will be forgotten. Even higher percentages of destruction, approaching 100%, will be undergone by contemporary art. Phenomena that we stand helpless against - will be eliminated as if by the way, unknowingly. How much wrath did Amnon Navot of blessed memory invest, and how many pens were broken... Does anyone still remember that there was once a thing called Ars-Poetics? Was there any value to all the commotion, on both sides? This will also happen to Bibi and Tzipper themselves, and also to political correctness and Me_Too, and also to the extreme right and the radical left, and to any corruption. Why open your mouth about what will be swallowed by a yawn? Not in wind or in earthquake is the Lord, and not in fire - but in a still small voice.

The future is not forgiving of politicization. Because politicization brings out the worst side of all sides. The left is based on preaching, and the right is based on incitement. And therefore the left is full of purism (hence: the purges) directed inward to the group. Leftists eat each other alive (or exile to the gulag). And in the right, incitement is directed outside the group (hence its fondness for marking the enemy as external). Who does it like to eat alive? "Them". Therefore the war in the 20th century against the extreme left became cold (with Hitler, the extreme right, there could not have been a cold war - and a nuclear war would have broken out). Both sides are worthless to the future, because the future is not built on the struggle between thesis and antithesis (right-left axis), but precisely on the breakthroughs perpendicular to the axis (which is usually a wall) - towards a new direction of synthesis. The future, how typical of it, cares only about innovation. And politics is by nature a dirty battle within the paradigm (because the clean is the new!). Therefore, anyone who says a variation on what has already been said - as if he said nothing. The question is not whether he said truth or falsehood, and who is right within the discourse, but whether anything interesting was said at all, something that opens thinking, and not something that closes it in some "correct" direction. The idea of persuasion in discourse, therefore, is the father of corruption, as if if I convince enough people - it will secure my place. Who is interested in convincing? Only to offer. Who cares if you are convinced? Persuasion is the idea that language has power - an idea that somehow convinced all the convincers.

After all, what is the motivation of people to publish on Facebook? What pitiful belief in discourse, or that the method to move things in the world is to talk about them, or the pathetic thought that there is importance in communicating "important" things to people. All of these are so disconnected from reality, yet so rooted in discourse, that they bring an entire culture to a state of reality denial. The belief in burning discourse and not consuming is much more absurd than the belief in the burning bush and not consuming, but the cult around it is very developed, because it is related to the human bias towards oral culture around the campfire (for example: gossip, or cheap wit). Only learning affects the world, but the chatter, in a kind of arspoetic justice, destroys itself - and will help the future separate the chaff from the wheat. Anyone whose value is measured by the fact that "there is talk about him" among those in the know and "they talk about him in the media" (and will forget him tomorrow) - will be talked out of the consciousness of the future. And only those who were a significant link in future learning will continue to exist in it.

For those who do not believe in the vitality of cultural learning in the face of cultural forgetting - we will bring a contemporary example. Recently I started reading Maayan Eitan's new and interesting book, "Love", and a thought crossed my mind that made me laugh a lot: Are people aware that the unique poetics of the book is taken almost one-to-one from the most famous poem of one - Yitzhak Laor? (You are invited to compare the two! Rock Girl). Including the dissociative context... How cunning is the way of the spirit in the world, and on this Ecclesiastes said: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits". The poetic solution survived all the politicization and personalization and gender reversal and changing times, and the chain continues - sometimes even without the awareness of both sides, Rabbi Laor and the student Eitan, because this is how the learning chain works. Learning is always interested only in the body of the matter - and not in the body of a person. And all this completely disconnected from discourse, from the audience, or from any other type of nuisance.

Why publish a book today at all? What is the motivation to present a work of art for judgment by artistic institutions? Is there a desire to reach an audience? But the audience itself is worthless, and also uninteresting. An artistic and literary community desiring life would have to completely disconnect itself from any price tag, because money is a corrupting measure, which in practice subordinates art to public opinion (and also the wealthy or the establishment are an inferior audience in their artistic taste). Today, when there is no audience and no money in art and literature and even in the world of spirit - there is actually a golden opportunity to disconnect these fields from capitalism, which caused them enormous cultural damage, and from the opinion of the general public - whose contribution to them is negative and destructive. The masses will always prefer mass "culture" over culture, and capitalism prefers popularity over reputation. Capitalist democracy will always give everyone equal status as ideology and practice, because the ballots and shekels are all equal, no matter who they come from, and in this it will always eliminate the reputation function in the name of the popularity function. After all, Facebook gives all likes equal status, and the number of users who viewed or liked something is the measure - not their quality. Such a disconnection between culture and audience will be positive (we didn't come to educate anyone!) - and will allow culture not to sell anything to anyone, in any sense. Not to be a commodity (not even a valuable or political or other type of nuisance commodity), and not to prostitute itself. A Haredi separation must be made between the livelihood of creators and the creation itself, and publish everything on the web, for the public domain, for free.

And how can a quality measure be maintained? In a simple and very familiar way - ask for approvals from authorities. Re-establish the custom of opening a work with approvals from known taste-makers and critics - who recommend it. Such a group, with great cultural capital, will be stronger than all the market outside and all the capital in the world. If, for example, a wide enough group of writers from among the most important and agreed-upon creators were to join a kind of network where everything is published on the web - but also receives approvals from within the group, which allow hierarchy and acceptance of new creators (what the world of language liked to call "new voices", and should really be called "new forms of learning" or in short: "innovations") - in the end it would even be economically worthwhile for them. Because everyone would then know very well who has more reputation. Then the influence of the literary republic on reality would be much stronger, because reality would chase after it, instead of the opposite (which determines the humiliating power relations between culture and its outside today). The moment you establish a strong and effective learning system - the whole world wants to join it, even if there is no profit of a penny. Because people by nature aspire to learning, and where there is real respect - there is real motivation. Even the power of money itself stems only from the instinct of respect, as can be seen in Haredi society, where the wealthy man is in an inferior social status compared to the leading cultural figures - and courts them. The one to whom desire is directed - is the ruler. Therefore, if culture wants power it needs to overcome its desire for the love of the audience and its wallet, or for its corrupt appreciation. The popular imagination appreciates only one thing - elitism that looks down on it. And today, when condescension has become a sin, a reversal of values must be performed - and not be ashamed of cultural superiority.

But there is no evil without good. We should rejoice in an era of positive network feedback in the field of economics, as opposed to the same positive feedback that destroys culture. Such an era actually has the potential to be an era of cultural flourishing par excellence - not in real time, but certainly from the perspective of future time. The very rise of material conditions themselves greatly affects the ease of creation and removes heavy barriers that hindered the progress of culture throughout history, and precisely because of the economic tide we can create a cultural tide. Only in this way can we take advantage of the drastic decrease in the production costs of culture in all fields, and also of its consumption, instead of being harmed by it. It costs nothing to write and not to publish, nor to read, and therefore it is necessary and possible to disconnect value from money (the general public is worthless). Why should a book cost money in our time? A book that costs money means a book that is not Torah for its own sake, and that is not disconnected from extra-cultural considerations. Does anyone at all, in the entire cultural field, earn anything significant from selling a book of cultural value? Why give publishers the cultural legitimacy they do not deserve, for shoes? Why give prestige to musty museums or collapsing galleries? It is much more economically and culturally efficient to establish a sharp Haredi division between economy and culture, because the moment you do not mix them it will be much easier for you to make a living - not from culture. The cultural-economic situation is such that there is no longer any point in this unnatural hybrid connection, of a species not of its kind (commercial publishing?), which is a musty relic of the printing revolution, and which has lost its relevance in the Internet age.

The new cultural learning system should be built according to the four basic principles of learning (the four postulates of the Netanya school): First of all, understanding that it is a learning system and not a discourse. Secondly, learning takes place within the system, disconnected from extra-cultural factors such as audience, money, politics, personas, clickbait journalism, or government approval. Third, unidirectionality - we are looking for innovations, but do not come to convince anyone that this and not otherwise. What matters is the learning interest, not any other argument, and arrows cannot be returned backwards (for example from creation to creator). And fourth, division between two types within the system: evaluated (creators) and evaluators (critics and researchers. Because who else needs active editors and mediating curators when publishing on the Internet? In the overall cultural summary, they caused more harm than good in their arrogant and domineering forcefulness). Finally, we must despise the severe form of corruption called the literary group. Creators are individuals, who participate in a learning system, and compete for the appreciation of authorities and creators in future generations. The groups are harmful both to the good creators in them - and to the bad ones.

In conclusion, Navot of blessed memory erred when he desperately wanted to keep the walls of past institutions at all costs - this is a lost battle. A new type of cultural learning system must be built, which is structurally less built for corruption. For this purpose, we do not have to establish a "new Facebook", but we can even take advantage of the existing structure of a Facebook group, if only a group of leading evaluators and authorities stands at its head as administrators, which is wide and strong enough in terms of its literary (or artistic, or research) taste and acceptable in terms of its cultural prestige. Such a group, where the content is filtered and presented by the administrators with a high hand, can be the gatekeeper that Navot yearned for, without the need to fix the irreparable publishers and other decaying institutions of the land. Are there still people who are capable of combining worship of the past with openness in bringing innovative voices of value (Navot himself did not excel in this)? It all depends on taste. It seems that in the current literary, artistic, or research field there is not even one person capable of this (everyone has their shortcomings), but precisely a group of leading taste-makers could create a whole greater than the sum of its parts, or at least revive on Facebook a forgotten institution - the literary salon. And if there are several such salons? Presumably they will be infected with the shortcomings of the literary group, but these are already rich people's troubles compared to the poor in spirit that we are today.

To Part 3

Culture and Literature


text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

Aristotle Sexually Harassed Me

She screamed, and it seemed to me like complete jealousy of the mouth towards the anus, and I thought about the unfair discrimination between them

By: A Famous and Successful Mouse

"The male response to #MeToo - #TooMuchInformation" (Source)

I dreamed that I was a famous and successful man and women were complaining that I had sexually harassed them. And I panic that no matter what I say, or even dream, it's a story whose ending is written in advance, and I don't want such narratives, because from a literary perspective they are flawed and uninteresting. This is not a tragedy, and it's impossible for my life to be a story written by someone else, and in another genre - inferior, medieval, of a moral tale - that suddenly took over, in the most unaesthetic way, of the complainant out of the machine. And what would Aristotle say, not to mention his epigone - Maimonides - who ruled that the law follows Aristotle in everything below the lunar sphere and to the center of the Earth, meaning including poetics, and therefore such an ending is against the law.

Is there anything I can do that will lead to a different ending? Something that all the genius men, including John Searle, inventor of the "Chinese Room", didn't think of? My brain races between possibilities like a gray mouse trapped in a dead-end trap, and every scenario, every response of the ugly mouse, everything ends the same way. The Kafkaesque situation reminds me of Kafka. He solved this literary problem after all... One must run towards the cat. There's nothing left to lose except losing in an original way. Because here, for example, Searle, the greatest living analytic philosopher, is accused of sexually assaulting a 24-year-old student at the age of 84, and this is going to be the ending of his Wikipedia entry. So my entry will end differently.

And I issue a response to the media: "Yes, I sexually harassed them, and I'm writing this against my lawyers' advice, because it doesn't suit me to hide like a coward behind the legal system, and besides, prison doesn't seem like an adventure to me." And the next day, the responses in the opinion pieces are encouraging: Finally a man who admits, who doesn't smear, who does what feminists think, and is happily willing to pay his debt to the movement. And the next day, encouraged by my success, I post on Facebook:

"#I_didn't_apologize I admit to everything, and I'm ready to detail all my crimes for the benefit of the nation, even those that haven't been complained about yet, as encouragement for #I_didn't_complain, without sparing any shameful detail from my abominable soul. I did the math last night and in total I sexually harassed two hundred women and sexually assaulted fifty, and every day I'll expose here a different harassment story and a new name of someone I harassed who hasn't yet gathered the courage to complain. I will pour out before you, my judges, the whole truth, unlike other men. And I'll start with the complainants.

The truth is, I harassed A because of her fat breasts, which peeked out from a too-small shirt, compressed, miserable, it seemed very funny to me to release them, so I put my hand in and skillfully pulled one of them out, you should have seen her face. Complainant B was flat and ugly, but I harassed her so as not to discriminate, because she looked like a mouse in need of attention, and I just thought I must be the first to ever pay attention to her, and I've always had sympathy for mice (you know I have a mousy body and face, and that's why no one wanted to date me, and that's exactly why I loved harassing elephants).

I harassed complainant C because of her buttocks, inspired by Hanoch Levin [Translator's note: Israeli playwright known for his provocative works] I had read the night before, I couldn't resist hanging a license plate on it. Because she has an ass face, she seemed to me to have a unique topological symmetry: LBBL (Limbs-Butt-Body-Butt-Limbs). And when the curves between the buttocks are much prettier than the face, I preferred to kiss there rather than her mouth. She screamed, and it seemed to me like complete jealousy of the mouth towards the anus, and I thought about the unfair discrimination between them, and the knight in me rebelled against the anus being a victim of the mouth, where everything that enters one comes out the other, only one is an object of desire and the other suffers cultural shaming. And then I licked her there in a Baudelaire-borderline way, and in front of her surprised gaze I quipped: Lashon hara [Translator's note: Hebrew term for derogatory speech about another person] - a terrible sin". And in the comments they write to me: The male response to #MeToo - #TooMuchInformation. #The_apology_is_worse_than_the_crime.

And I continue the next day on Facebook: "This morning I went to the police station and confessed to rape! I raped the famous presenter, wife of the famous politician (despite all the non-identifying details I won't reveal her name here, so you can try to guess, although it's not nice, and thus experience a hint of the pleasure I experienced). When I reached my satisfaction she shouted: No, no! My husband will kill you. But her husband did nothing to me. And they didn't even go to the police. I must mention that I have tapes of her narration in rape cases, which I used to enjoy, how her mouth utters the word "rape" in a spasm. For those interested in the color and shape of her nipples: link in the first comment". And the media goes wild: Rape in the newsroom. No response from the presenter. But the presenter finally responds: "I wasn't raped. I don't remember him touching me at all. I don't know what he's talking about".

And I write: "I have no idea why she chooses to deny what happened. It's probably just because she's uncomfortable with her husband. Maybe she didn't tell him. And maybe there's a darker explanation for the black hole in your memory: you simply repressed it because of the trauma! Sometimes it takes 20 years to remember a rape, studies show that sometimes it takes even 60 years to complain about a rape. I claimed yesterday in my repeated interrogation at the police that there's a need to send her for psychoanalytic treatment at the state's expense where she will remember it as I remember it - as if it was last night, when I fantasized about her again".

And the next day I continue with the media blitz. The news announces that tonight there will be an exclusive interview with the serial harasser (allegedly), the sexual assaulter (allegedly), the controversial rapist (allegedly), who promises to tell this time live the truth and nothing but the truth about the affair that's shaking the country and declares: "Tonight I will reveal the dark secret of my life". And the interviewer asks: You've taken an unconventional approach against the allegations against you, and they say you've buried yourself. Why? And I say: Wow, the idea of self-burial actually really appeals to me! But the truth is that I chose to take the full disclosure approach, and confession in the intimate Facebook cell before the whole world, because I too have gone through what the complainants went through. And the public has the right to judge me, it's the democratic right of each and every one of you to judge me.

\- But it seems like you're almost enjoying this!

\- Well, that's the joy of wallowing in the despicable that brought me to this in the first place, isn't it? But as with any psychological motive that penetrates deeply (ha!), it didn't just grow out of nowhere, you know. If I hadn't gone through what I went through, I wouldn't have come to this at all, after all if there's anything we've learned from feminism it's that it's a cycle of abuse, and the whole world revolves around finding the first cause, just like in the Middle Ages (Maimonides identified it with God).

And the interviewer asks with fake empathy: Tell us what you went through. And I burst into tears: Yeshayahu Leibowitz [Translator's note: Prominent Israeli intellectual] sexually harassed me! I was an ultra-Orthodox child who came for answers, and I left with questions, hard, piercing, penetrating, to body and soul! I came to ask him about the psychophysical problem, and he raped me - that was his answer. Who could I turn to? Who would believe me. Such an old man, I was just completely paralyzed, I didn't understand what he was doing, when he asked me to take off my pants I thought he would show me the connection between body and soul. And in a way he did show! Even today they won't believe me, and I, like every complainant, just want to be believed, it's our only right, for them to tell us: we believe you. So I understand them. Men are also sexually harassed.

\- Wow, in all my years as an interviewer, I don't know what to say. But why didn't you reveal this until today? After all, you were a successful and well-known man.

And I sob: You see, you're just like them! (Choke). After all, everyone knew that all the old men harass, there was a conspiracy of silence, yes, I'll tell everything! (Choke, choke) In all the newspaper systems they knew that Shimon Peres [Translator's note: Former Israeli President and Prime Minister] didn't live with his wife because he was a pedophile, and that Yitzhak Rabin [Translator's note: Former Israeli Prime Minister] raped Leah when she was 15 and he was 22, and that since then he repeatedly raped all his secretaries in his drunkenness. That Agnon [Translator's note: Nobel Prize-winning Israeli author] was a serial butt-grabber of young admirers, while his wife was in depression, and that Gershom Scholem [Translator's note: Prominent scholar of Jewish mysticism] was so deep into BDSM, that he was involved in a murder and abuse case of one of the slaves of Gertrude, his third wife, the Sabbatean (choke choke choke), that's what happens when you delve too deep into the deep secrets of Jewish mysticism - everything turns into pornography.

Nightlife

domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Aristotle Sexually Harassed Me - 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/night-life16" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/mouse.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

Aristotle Sexually Harassed Me

She screamed, and it seemed to me like complete jealousy of the mouth towards the anus, and I thought about the unfair discrimination between them

By: A Famous and Successful Mouse

"The male response to #MeToo - #TooMuchInformation" (Source)

I dreamed that I was a famous and successful man and women were complaining that I had sexually harassed them. And I panic that no matter what I say, or even dream, it's a story whose ending is written in advance, and I don't want such narratives, because from a literary perspective they are flawed and uninteresting. This is not a tragedy, and it's impossible for my life to be a story written by someone else, and in another genre - inferior, medieval, of a moral tale - that suddenly took over, in the most unaesthetic way, of the complainant out of the machine. And what would Aristotle say, not to mention his epigone - Maimonides - who ruled that the law follows Aristotle in everything below the lunar sphere and to the center of the Earth, meaning including poetics, and therefore such an ending is against the law.

Is there anything I can do that will lead to a different ending? Something that all the genius men, including John Searle, inventor of the "Chinese Room", didn't think of? My brain races between possibilities like a gray mouse trapped in a dead-end trap, and every scenario, every response of the ugly mouse, everything ends the same way. The Kafkaesque situation reminds me of Kafka. He solved this literary problem after all... One must run towards the cat. There's nothing left to lose except losing in an original way. Because here, for example, Searle, the greatest living analytic philosopher, is accused of sexually assaulting a 24-year-old student at the age of 84, and this is going to be the ending of his Wikipedia entry. So my entry will end differently.

And I issue a response to the media: "Yes, I sexually harassed them, and I'm writing this against my lawyers' advice, because it doesn't suit me to hide like a coward behind the legal system, and besides, prison doesn't seem like an adventure to me." And the next day, the responses in the opinion pieces are encouraging: Finally a man who admits, who doesn't smear, who does what feminists think, and is happily willing to pay his debt to the movement. And the next day, encouraged by my success, I post on Facebook:

"#I_didn't_apologize I admit to everything, and I'm ready to detail all my crimes for the benefit of the nation, even those that haven't been complained about yet, as encouragement for #I_didn't_complain, without sparing any shameful detail from my abominable soul. I did the math last night and in total I sexually harassed two hundred women and sexually assaulted fifty, and every day I'll expose here a different harassment story and a new name of someone I harassed who hasn't yet gathered the courage to complain. I will pour out before you, my judges, the whole truth, unlike other men. And I'll start with the complainants.

The truth is, I harassed A because of her fat breasts, which peeked out from a too-small shirt, compressed, miserable, it seemed very funny to me to release them, so I put my hand in and skillfully pulled one of them out, you should have seen her face. Complainant B was flat and ugly, but I harassed her so as not to discriminate, because she looked like a mouse in need of attention, and I just thought I must be the first to ever pay attention to her, and I've always had sympathy for mice (you know I have a mousy body and face, and that's why no one wanted to date me, and that's exactly why I loved harassing elephants).

I harassed complainant C because of her buttocks, inspired by Hanoch Levin [Translator's note: Israeli playwright known for his provocative works] I had read the night before, I couldn't resist hanging a license plate on it. Because she has an ass face, she seemed to me to have a unique topological symmetry: LBBL (Limbs-Butt-Body-Butt-Limbs). And when the curves between the buttocks are much prettier than the face, I preferred to kiss there rather than her mouth. She screamed, and it seemed to me like complete jealousy of the mouth towards the anus, and I thought about the unfair discrimination between them, and the knight in me rebelled against the anus being a victim of the mouth, where everything that enters one comes out the other, only one is an object of desire and the other suffers cultural shaming. And then I licked her there in a Baudelaire-borderline way, and in front of her surprised gaze I quipped: Lashon hara [Translator's note: Hebrew term for derogatory speech about another person] - a terrible sin". And in the comments they write to me: The male response to #MeToo - #TooMuchInformation. #The_apology_is_worse_than_the_crime.

And I continue the next day on Facebook: "This morning I went to the police station and confessed to rape! I raped the famous presenter, wife of the famous politician (despite all the non-identifying details I won't reveal her name here, so you can try to guess, although it's not nice, and thus experience a hint of the pleasure I experienced). When I reached my satisfaction she shouted: No, no! My husband will kill you. But her husband did nothing to me. And they didn't even go to the police. I must mention that I have tapes of her narration in rape cases, which I used to enjoy, how her mouth utters the word "rape" in a spasm. For those interested in the color and shape of her nipples: link in the first comment". And the media goes wild: Rape in the newsroom. No response from the presenter. But the presenter finally responds: "I wasn't raped. I don't remember him touching me at all. I don't know what he's talking about".

And I write: "I have no idea why she chooses to deny what happened. It's probably just because she's uncomfortable with her husband. Maybe she didn't tell him. And maybe there's a darker explanation for the black hole in your memory: you simply repressed it because of the trauma! Sometimes it takes 20 years to remember a rape, studies show that sometimes it takes even 60 years to complain about a rape. I claimed yesterday in my repeated interrogation at the police that there's a need to send her for psychoanalytic treatment at the state's expense where she will remember it as I remember it - as if it was last night, when I fantasized about her again".

And the next day I continue with the media blitz. The news announces that tonight there will be an exclusive interview with the serial harasser (allegedly), the sexual assaulter (allegedly), the controversial rapist (allegedly), who promises to tell this time live the truth and nothing but the truth about the affair that's shaking the country and declares: "Tonight I will reveal the dark secret of my life". And the interviewer asks: You've taken an unconventional approach against the allegations against you, and they say you've buried yourself. Why? And I say: Wow, the idea of self-burial actually really appeals to me! But the truth is that I chose to take the full disclosure approach, and confession in the intimate Facebook cell before the whole world, because I too have gone through what the complainants went through. And the public has the right to judge me, it's the democratic right of each and every one of you to judge me.

- But it seems like you're almost enjoying this!

- Well, that's the joy of wallowing in the despicable that brought me to this in the first place, isn't it? But as with any psychological motive that penetrates deeply (ha!), it didn't just grow out of nowhere, you know. If I hadn't gone through what I went through, I wouldn't have come to this at all, after all if there's anything we've learned from feminism it's that it's a cycle of abuse, and the whole world revolves around finding the first cause, just like in the Middle Ages (Maimonides identified it with God).

And the interviewer asks with fake empathy: Tell us what you went through. And I burst into tears: Yeshayahu Leibowitz [Translator's note: Prominent Israeli intellectual] sexually harassed me! I was an ultra-Orthodox child who came for answers, and I left with questions, hard, piercing, penetrating, to body and soul! I came to ask him about the psychophysical problem, and he raped me - that was his answer. Who could I turn to? Who would believe me. Such an old man, I was just completely paralyzed, I didn't understand what he was doing, when he asked me to take off my pants I thought he would show me the connection between body and soul. And in a way he did show! Even today they won't believe me, and I, like every complainant, just want to be believed, it's our only right, for them to tell us: we believe you. So I understand them. Men are also sexually harassed.

- Wow, in all my years as an interviewer, I don't know what to say. But why didn't you reveal this until today? After all, you were a successful and well-known man.

And I sob: You see, you're just like them! (Choke). After all, everyone knew that all the old men harass, there was a conspiracy of silence, yes, I'll tell everything! (Choke, choke) In all the newspaper systems they knew that Shimon Peres [Translator's note: Former Israeli President and Prime Minister] didn't live with his wife because he was a pedophile, and that Yitzhak Rabin [Translator's note: Former Israeli Prime Minister] raped Leah when she was 15 and he was 22, and that since then he repeatedly raped all his secretaries in his drunkenness. That Agnon [Translator's note: Nobel Prize-winning Israeli author] was a serial butt-grabber of young admirers, while his wife was in depression, and that Gershom Scholem [Translator's note: Prominent scholar of Jewish mysticism] was so deep into BDSM, that he was involved in a murder and abuse case of one of the slaves of Gertrude, his third wife, the Sabbatean (choke choke choke), that's what happens when you delve too deep into the deep secrets of Jewish mysticism - everything turns into pornography.

Nightlife