domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>On Certainty: The Philosophy of Learning Version - 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-learning88" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/incredulity.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

On Certainty: The Philosophy of Learning Version

Towards the End - Back to Basics

By: A Sick Philosopher

Certainty in the Teacher - and Doubt in the Student  (Source)

"What is the source of the law? That you learned it. The authority of the Torah is the study of the Torah. A law that is not learned is not a law. Learning, not language, is the foundation beneath our perception, it is the form of connection between man and reality, or in a more advanced world - the basis beneath our thinking. The question is always how do we learn something? This is the way to depth. Instead of the source of authority for mathematics - how do we learn mathematics? And this is also the source of authority for Judaism, not the law and not history - and not tradition - but learning. God as the great teacher - this is the definition of God. The teacher of teachers. All the power and effectiveness of science comes only from learning. Judaism is the great religion of learning - the longest and deepest learning in the world" (from the words of the teacher).

The authority of any system stems from learning it. It has no independent authority that does not stem from learning. For example, the senses or reason have no independent authority. Neither does state law or moral law. There is no underlying logic or justice that exists underneath, but everything is learned. Even thinking is learned. Therefore, there is no point 0 from which one can start. If we ask what is the source of authority and justification for mathematics, for example, it is the study of mathematics. That's where mathematics comes from, and it has no other source of authority that does not pass through learning. It does not stem from reason - reason is also learned, whether as an infant, as a child, or even before that - as a genome, throughout evolution. There is never a starting point for learning, and therefore there are no answers beyond learning. If we ask why, we eventually arrive at "that's how I learned it", or "that's how I was taught". Even if in the end we undermine what was taught or learned, this too is because you learned or were taught this as well. Even criticism is learned. All thinking is learned. Beneath the law, any possible law, including state laws and mathematical laws and Torah laws - stands learning. We are within learning and have no access to the world without it, and so does any learning system - which is every developed system in the world - it has no access to the world outside of learning. There is no access to some Archimedean point outside of learning, or some basic ground that precedes it. The problem of no direct access to the real, or to the thing-in-itself, is not some unique characterization of man, trapped behind the screen of learning, because:

a) First of all, it is not a screen that exists between us and the world, in fact it is our own foundation, meaning we do not have thinking within ourselves that was not learned, meaning it is more of a floor than a screen, and it is more correct to say (since we cannot stand on learning as a floor and get out of it) that it is water, which we swim in (but this too is misleading because it gives us a picture that we have an inner essence - the inside of the fish - that is not part of the water), and therefore it is most correct to say that it is our skeleton, our essence, our own inner self - we are learning.

b) This is not at all a characterization that stems from the human condition, or something that distinguishes man and makes him a unique phenomenon in the world, but a characterization of any learning system. All learning systems (including for example the economy, the Torah, or culture) are trapped within their learning essence. Man is just a particular case, not particularly special, of a learning system. The philosophy of learning is also true for artificial intelligence or aliens - for any learning system. And also for completely open learning systems - like art. There is no sense of encapsulation here where we are inside a cell peeking at the world.

Therefore, unlike philosophies that are only initial conditions, and deal only with problems outside the world, and therefore have no real meaning in the world, learning is not just the framework, or the foundations, or the superstructure. Learning is the internal mechanism and the internal will and the internal motive. Exactly like the internal energy that Schopenhauer called the will, only it is not characterized as evil - or as will to power like Nietzsche - but as learning: will to learn, and action in the form of learning. Learning (unlike external cognition for example, or an external framework like language) characterizes what is inside the world, the way things actually work and are driven from within in everyday life, at the most practical and real level - it is in the world like the laws of nature, or like the laws of the Torah according to religion. The reading and writing of this text are learning. So is thinking about it. One cannot get out of learning, or escape from it. If so, what is its meaning? The clarification that the idea of learning provides us is how the process behaves: it is not just action, calculation, or thinking - but learning. It is not communication, logic, sensation or perception in its essence, but learning in its essence. Therefore, it has development, graduality, building, interest, directions, and more - and therefore it also answers the four principles of learning.

This understanding that "everything is learning" is not empty or trivial, but conveys information that not only saves us from perceptual errors, but also helps us focus and advance learning. Learning can progress inefficiently, or not progress at all, if we have an incorrect picture of what is happening. For example, if we think we have reached the final and ultimate conclusion, or that it is possible to reach it, like reaching the last station on a train track. But progress in learning is not progress on a track, it can branch out in many directions, and has no end, and it progresses on a wide front, and sometimes even goes back and changes backwards. In learning there is also building, but it does not create a structure - and is not a building of floors, as in certain philosophical pictures - but more similar to organic development. But if we have a correct, learning-based perception of ourselves and of systems, then we can learn better. For example: to seek innovations (in various ways, such as encouraging creativity), to invest in everything directly related to learning (the idea of investment itself stems from learning) such as self-study and learning materials and teaching and learning systems, and to try mechanisms that work in different learning systems (competition, multiplication, diversity, mutations, exemplary examples from the past, remembering the history of learning in the system, and more).

Why is mathematics precise? Because its learning is precise. Computing was the attempt to mechanize this precision, after mathematical learning achieved sufficient precision (Frege) - hence its success. The property was transferred from learning to the machine, but came from the learning that preceded it. The authority of language laws, for example, stems from the fact that we taught the child the language. So too with state laws - we learned to obey, and not because the law is written somewhere or because we were convinced of its justification. The source of every law is in learning - including mathematical law. And the fact that learning in it is precise, and everyone will reach the same result, does not make the mathematical law one whose source of justification does not stem from learning. For example, from other axioms different laws would follow. Throughout the history of mathematics there have been many cases where precise mathematical learning failed to produce results without contradiction, and then it was refined (sometimes, as in the case of infinitesimal calculus, it took generations), and this is because it is accepted in it not to accept any contradiction or ambiguity or incompleteness (in fact, today it is clear that there is incompleteness, although there is an aspiration for completeness, and for reasoned decision, for example, even in the continuum problem).

Learning is indeed the source of the law - but it is not the zero point from which the law comes out - because it is precisely this idea: that there is no zero point. There is nothing outside of learning. All learning relies on previous learning. Even the beginning of life, seemingly before evolution, relies on learning processes in which only relatively stable molecules remained, and before that relatively stable elements, and relatively stable planets and stars and galaxies - at the beginning of the universe there was no life, and the universe underwent development at the end of which life was created. But development is not identical to learning, and physics has yet to understand how the development of the universe is related to learning. It may even be that life is not an anomaly. But even if the beginning of life is the beginning of learning, we do not have such a specific moment, in which life began and learning began, but it was an adaptive process, perhaps with physical components (spontaneous order and self-organization), which has a deep connection to the laws in nature itself.

Is the source of the laws of nature in a physical learning process? Even if we assume not, from our perspective science is a learning process, and the existence of these laws for us only passes through learning them. We do not have a list of the laws of nature. Their source in our perception is learning. And it is a long and endless process of learning, in which the laws of nature replace many formulations, from intuitive understanding that may be wired in the child's brain, to increasingly abstract mathematical formulations, so that there is no true and final formulation of the laws of nature, which we are approaching and will eventually reach, but it is a learning process. The laws of physics are not written anywhere, just like the laws of grammar, or the laws of thinking, or mathematics. In all these cases, a tremendous learning effort is invested in finding the laws from practice - and writing them - an effort that has progress but no end, just like in learning.

Why? Because that's how I learned. This is not an argument, but it is also not just a description, which lacks any justificatory value. Learning is this middle ground, which has direction, that is, a kind of push in a certain direction, but without the ability to identify the pusher, but also without alienation from the pusher. Because it is not an external pusher, but an impulse that is identified with, an internal push that is us, so "that's how I learned" is not identical to "that's how the laws of nature activated my brain". There is a learning argument here, internal to the system, which identifies valid learning, and not an argument external to it (like a physical argument in relation to the action of the brain within the thinking arguments of that brain: no criminal can say that he murdered because of the laws of physics). "That's how I learned" is supposed to justify learning with tools internal to learning, and not external to it: an argument that is accepted in the learning system, which is part of it. For example, like a proof in mathematics, or a judge's reasoning in a verdict, or a scientific (or economic, aesthetic, religious, etc.) argument. But if we continue endlessly with the why questions, we eventually arrive at "that's how I learned". That's how I learned in kindergarten. That's how I learned in class. That's how my mother taught me. That's how we were taught at university. That's how evolution learned. That's how I learned from experience. We also learned the ability to criticize, change or reject laws. We learned everything. Even to be creative - we learned.

The state of "that's how I learned" also does not make it arbitrary - "that's how I learned" is not identical to "that's how". It does not allow us any law we want, but only a law we have learned. We cannot invent a law, because we have not learned it, nor interpret it in a distorted, arbitrary way. Because then the situation is not "that's how I learned", but "I learned incorrectly". In fact, all this allows us perhaps only freedom that is learning in relation to the law. Just as the sages of Halacha have no learning freedom that nullifies the divine law, but they do have learning freedom that develops it. No one can decide that it is permissible to light a fire on Shabbat, but it is certainly possible to decide that lighting a bulb is a derivative of fire, if it fits according to the learning from the law that has developed. Couldn't it be that everyone will suddenly interpret that fire in the Torah means cat? Exactly as it could be that in the laws of language, according to which people speak, fire will turn into cat - that is, it cannot be. And the fact is that it works. How does it work? How is it that there is still Shabbat, and not everyone interprets as they please? Because learning is something that works. There is learning in the world, and it is the basis for all systems that work, such as legal systems. The success of learning does not stem from some proof that it will work - but from the actual organization of the system.

The idea of argument in learning is very similar to the idea of argument in legal systems, and therefore we can use legal systems as an image for learning systems - which have learning arguments. Seemingly, one can invent any argument, and there is nothing to stop arbitrariness, and we will reach a situation where "anything goes", like in modern art, and who are you to determine for me. But, in practice, there are many agents in these systems, and new agents go through education and learning processes, and progress gradually, and if someone tries to say something arbitrary then the rest of the agents correct him, and maybe even remove him from the system if he continues to insist. Therefore, these systems are actually conservative, not arbitrary. They have arguments that are considered valid for learning, and they also have innovation, but not every argument passes, and there are internal criticism mechanisms. So too in learning. Even if one neuron in the brain goes crazy, or one thought is illogical, they will be suppressed. In a situation where the whole system begins to act arbitrarily - learning really collapses, and this is the state of madness, autism or dementia. There may be a situation where the scientific community will suddenly all start believing in witchcraft, but this situation is not likely, and even if it happens - it will cease to be a scientific community, and will no longer have learning ability. That is, it works - "that's how I learned". But, if you go outside of learning - there is no learning.

Learning depends precisely on this - on the organic development of the law. It is not related to social or personal reasons for example, although they may have influenced from outside on the development from within, but the perspective from which it looks at the system is from within - from within the learning itself. Therefore, a social reason will not be valid for a specific verdict, but a legal reason will be valid. The reason must be within the internal world of learning arguments, for example: equality according to the law entails equality for women or that the law can be interpreted as granting equality to women. And not: because the status of women in society has changed, regardless of the law, or even contrary to it, now there will be equality for women. The learning argument must be from within the learning system itself, in which, as a learning system, there are arguments that allow development and learning. Science, for example, needs to prove from within itself whether there is equality of abilities between men and women, and not rely on moral or legal learning. An internal scientific argument is needed. Mathematics will also not be convinced by a physical argument - even if we conduct a billion experiments with numbers that will fit a certain hypothesis, mathematics will still demand proof, because that's how mathematical learning works. The reason we cannot prove whatever we want is not that mathematics stems from logic itself, and is no different from the reason a judge cannot determine a verdict as he pleases and contrary to the law. Because there are legal review mechanisms. In mathematics too we encounter proofs with holes or conceptual problems that were understood later. It's a learning process. If the system allows arbitrary arguments - it is not a learning system. But the development of forms of argumentation is not arbitrary, but learning-based. It may be that an argument that was not valid in the past begins to gain validity in the system. But if the system becomes one where every argument is valid in it - it is no longer learning-based.

In fact, learning preserves the system as learning - it has self-preservation mechanisms. It is always on guard. There is nothing that guarantees it, like some timeless logical argument, or philosophical proof. Like an army that is always required to deter and defend the state - because the state is not here by virtue of an agreement, or right, but by virtue of the ability to defend it and the deterrence it creates. There is always a need for judicial or scientific criticism for example. There is always a need to teach new scientists or judges for example. There are always arguments, disputes, deliberations - if there are none then there is probably no learning. Learning is not mechanical, but there are junctions in it where there are several possibilities, but still not all possibilities. And who keeps the possibilities? Who guards it? It itself. The brain takes care of itself not to go crazy. Learning always requires energy. It is not a stable process without any possible failure, but it certainly reduces failures and stabilizes itself, as part of learning - because of its tendency for organic development, that is, for a kind of building, its recoil from unexplained jumps, its need for argument within its own tools, and also self-criticism mechanisms. When learning there is practice, examination, questions, tasks, training, feedback and so on. There are appeal options and there is peer review and there are experiments and there is documentation and there are procedures and there is competition and there is reputation and there is a market and so on. The internal learning drive passes through learning tools and learning aids and learning structures, which were shaped during learning, as part of the experience in it. These tools are not a priori, and there is not necessarily proof of their effectiveness, and other tools may develop later - but they are not arbitrary. Like learning itself.

Learning will not calm those who want a final ground, on which they can put their feet as an unquestionable foundation, but it will allow a boat for those who want to sail. It will not produce an artificial starting point but will allow progress. It will not produce an external and objective yardstick - but it will allow many internal control tools and learning tools. It will also explain why there is actually no such ground or such a yardstick - why we can never prove that our learning system will work forever, and we will always have to work to make it work. No one can ever prove that he will never go crazy. No empire can assume that it will survive forever. Even mathematics can reach a state where everything interesting is known and it is not interesting, or where a significant part of what is interesting cannot be decided, or where the proofs for most theorems are ugly and technical and lack insight, or a conceptual error that has no solution, or a trouble we didn't think of - because learning is never predictable. From the very openness of learning - there may be failures in it. Learning is not possible without learning failures - so there will always be wisdom in hindsight, and a lot. It will always look easier after we have learned, and it will be difficult to understand the difficulty in learning. And this is precisely because we have no perspective external to learning.

In fact, the phenomenon of perceptual anachronism and the inability to perceptually return to previous learning states, even of yourself, and certainly in history (for example, to understand mathematics 200 or 2000 years ago, or religion) - are the evidence that learning is one-directional, and always from within itself. You cannot go back. You cannot turn from a human to a monkey. It's not like a logical proof where you can move in both directions, both backwards and forwards. The choice at each stage in learning was made from within the system's state then, and today you are already external to it, and it is very difficult for you to reconstruct how things looked before they developed in a certain direction, or before a certain idea was known. Therefore, learning creates development. It's not just movement in a certain direction, which then you can simply go back, but change. The enormous difficulty of entering the mind of our predecessors is what shows the way that has been made and the perceptual progress. Therefore, many times it is so difficult for us to properly appreciate the difficulty and the way that has been made - it seems easy to us, obvious, and clear to make certain learning moves, in hindsight. After we have read a mathematical proof and appropriate definitions we will never understand the difficulty of finding these definitions, after what is already obvious to us through a huge learning search in the tree, between definitions that did not work. But we see only the short way between their state and ours, and it seems obvious to us, and do not understand how many additional paths had to be walked in the maze on the way of trial and error until they reached the "logical" way. This is the nature of logic, that it is obvious, unlike learning. Logic is the wisdom of learning in hindsight. Of course Napoleon should not have tried to conquer Russia in winter - we would not make such a basic mistake. It's simple logic. We will never understand the learning achievement in real revolutions - for example the scientific revolution. Because we are already inside it. And we have no external perspective. Therefore, we will always be wise at night.

Therefore, the idea of learning itself seems obvious to us - although it was not understood until today, and until our time. It's a simple idea. As if we achieved nothing in it. But if we just review the history of ideas and philosophy we will understand how not obvious it is precisely. The idea of learning that is so instinctive (for us) was not instinctive (for them). The great success of philosophy is when it becomes obvious - and then points to the obvious. In this it shows the learning that has been done. If there were no more people of the past of the philosophy of language or epistemology among us, we would not understand our innovation at all. Therefore, we must thank them for their conservatism and fossilization, before we become the philosophy of the obvious. The idea of learning is so basic, that in the future they will not be able to understand it at all - because it will be so obvious.

In conclusion: The history of philosophy sought the foundations of the system outside of it - you cannot prove something from within itself - and thus was dragged into regression, to first principles. Learning is the system within which you can indeed base things from within itself, without this leading to triviality, because the foundation itself is subject to the learning method. The infinite regression in learning is not problematic, but normal and necessary, because it is regression to previous stages of learning in the system - and learning is infinite by nature. The way is still opening along - even when the teacher closes his eyelids. The elevation of a teacher's soul is when he turns from orthodoxy to method (and its killing - vice versa). When the teacher turns from content to form, then a teaching is created, and the continuation of his soul is when a person turns into learning. Thus he merits eternal life. If the future is infinite, with no limit to learning - there is no reason for the past to be finite. A proof has a beginning and an end. Mathematics itself - does not. Life has a beginning and an end - learning itself does not. The brain is born and dies - but thought itself has no starting point and ending point. The justification is the righteous man himself - the exceptional person who walked the path and set an example - and not the futile attempt to seek the beginning of the path, which has neither beginning, nor - end.

Philosophy of the Future


source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Psychotic Love - 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-life81" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/lovehell.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

Psychotic Love

Trust me - don't ask why you're here. That's the biggest mistake

By: The One Who Hides in the Sheets

In the Maw of the Bed (Source)

I dreamed I was dying in bed, and I tell myself there's no big change here, since I've been living in bed anyway. No pressure. But the bed itself apparently doesn't feel that way. It feels something is wrong. That things can't continue as before. And it starts to press and close in on me. Normally I would get up and straighten it and the rebellious sheets (and the cover that always tries to escape), but now I can't move, not even to show it that I'm looking with a threatening gaze, and it takes advantage of that. And I realize that it's actually taking advantage of the situation in my absence. And who knows what it would do when I'm not there all these years. So now I'll probably find out. And the treacherous bed really starts to close in on me, like lips it starts to suck me, or maybe suck something out of me, that it wants to come out, and it grips me from all sides, even though ostensibly nothing happened and I'm lying innocently, but it feels really not innocent, this sucking of all of me - and I feel something gaping beneath me (I can't look), some dark abyss - and the bed swallows my soul.

And I feel some great fall, a very sharp drop in pretty much everything I am, some infinite forgetting, a dramatic decline in the importance of everything, a loss of moral senses - and it seems there is no bottom, and no bottom to the bottom, and no bottom to the bottom of the bottom, and now there's no doubt that I'm a thousand times lower than before, I'm like a black sun sinking into the earth, like a hole falling into black sand and it can't be stopped. And only then do I realize (you can be really stupid when you're dead): Sheol [the underworld].

And I tell myself okay, at least I've already lost, and there's no need to stress. And I also ask the German next to me if he's stressed, because it scares me that he might have some connection to the Nazis, after all it's a bit suspicious - a German in hell. And the German is happy to talk: You're from Israel? New here? Let me tell you, when you die it's actually a great relief! Never mind the righteous who go to heaven, but nowadays the internalization of sin is so great - that even for the wicked it's a relief to get to hell. Everyone's happy with their lot and there are no problems, not like in the old days in the Middle Ages when there were arguments. Because the main thing is to get what you deserve! And I ask: Not that you should suspect I'm still stuck in the Middle Ages, but how can I know what I deserve? And he says: Everyone here is very professional, no one will do you wrong. You need to trust the system. I know that as a Jew it's a bit hard for you to trust, and it's always important for you to verify that no mistake was made, because every Jew has some inner feeling that he deserves heaven, no matter what he did. But trust me - don't ask why you're here. That's the biggest mistake.

And I move away from this German (what a nation of bookkeepers! No wonder they did the Holocaust) - and it still bothers me. What exactly did I do to deserve hell, after all I haven't left the bed for years and no one has entered. You could say I haven't lived at all (since what happened with her) - so why doesn't my death reflect my life, after all I always thought my life already reflected death. It's a bit unfair. It's, how should I put it, an implausibility in the plot. I mean it seems very artificial from the outside and out of place, and breaks expectations - at least mine, and I'm the main reader, and in fact the only one, of my life, so if it convinces me - apparently some criticism wouldn't hurt. No system is free from errors, no one is an angel. After all, I'm really trying sincerely to be as objective as possible here - and quite succeeding. So I leave the German and turn to the angel of destruction.

And the destructive angel explains to me: Look, Jew, I apologize that you're here among all the Germans, and you didn't even murder. And I say: It's okay, I'm just interested in how you work. I never expected to find myself in hell - it's just interesting. And the destructive angel gets angry: Interesting, huh? Interesting that you're the one talking about interesting. Everyone here becomes an innocent saint, there are more saints here than in heaven. And I don't quite understand: What do you mean? And the angel claps his wings: You, you! You sinned, transgressed, committed crimes, destroyed so much, wasted everything you received, didn't make an effort, thought you knew, wise guy at night. And now you suddenly don't know. Now you remember to be interesting. Really interesting. And I say, even though I'm only half guessing what he's talking about: At least I tried? And the destroyer gets angry: Don't talk to me now about experimentalism. Those excuses don't work in hell. The situation is catastrophic, a spiritual Holocaust, no less, even worse than the physical Holocaust. You caused more cultural damage than Nazism, and now you'll suffer with them together in hell: worthy of each other, a match made in heaven, body and soul. And I'm already asking, more out of curiosity, though also feeling a need (mainly to myself, after all) to play innocent: What did I do?

And the angel loses his composure: We, because you're Jews, still have mercy on you, but you didn't have mercy on the reader. So do you understand why you're here? How obtuse can you be? We need deterrence, against a wave, a flood, a tsunami, a deluge of bad literature and terrible writing that's flooding the Torah, and drowning the heavens, we're choking here. Filthy graphomaniac! Cultural criminal, rapist of verses and murderer of books - there are few who have written worse than you, but no one has written as badly as you. When there's something in time - it's not in place. And when there's something in place - it's not in time. It's impossible to read any book you've written. No one has read. But you kept producing them. The amount of garbage, amateurism, inarticulateness, hollow pretension, desecration of language, licking of speech, and the smell, the smell, the sewage from the mouth... And I cut him off because it's already too hard for me to hear this, and precisely because of that I get worked up (I really would have been ready for any sin - but such an accusation is worse than an accusation of murder!): With all due respect, you're claiming I got to hell - no less - because I wrote poorly?

And the angel of destruction grabs me: Your punishment, vile evildoer, will be to hear all the mistakes you made, all the errors in structure and phrasing and things that don't connect, that you'll regret and never be able to fix again, unclean dead! You ruined the books given to you from heaven. You didn't adhere to the bare minimum. There's no continuity, no story, no characters - and therefore no reader. Plot, lazy one, plot, what every child knows, plot, rotten carcass - and I try to explain: But there's a blood libel plot, a plot that rises from between dreams, that flows between them and through them in the darkness. Can't you see that? And the destructive angel looks at the other one, confused, and asks: Did you understand what he wants? And the other, who is a professional arch-terrorist and archangel says: That's exactly his guilt - that you didn't understand. He managed to confuse even you. Let him go back to the Germans for now, let him suffer from the anticipation of our criticism, from the constant anxiety, from the hovering verdict. This is the torture of spiritual criminals - a literary critic from hell, who will tear him to shreds, make mincemeat out of him and roast him in the inferno. I promise you he'll feel it in his flesh, in his soul, in his spirit! More than any other punishment this will hurt to the very depths of his being and his pathetic roundness. Thus shall be done to the betrayer of Torah, to one who defiled the holy tongue, fornicated with Kabbalah in public, and repeated himself ad nauseam like a dog returning to its vomit - and when no one wanted to publish his stench, he simply published his filth on the internet, to intentionally pollute the spiritual climate. He was given ideas in abundance, and he ruined them all in his corruption, in his disregard, in his lack of seriousness, in self-destruction - the greatest enemy of himself.

And I return to the Germans but dejected and hanging my head - over this final and ultimate heavenly judgment on all my works, which will never have resurrection or remedy. And I think: What grace God did for us by putting the Germans in hell, at least with them I suddenly feel comfortable. It's easy to feel good next to them. And I ask the German with a smile, while fearing to hurt his feelings: What are you actually doing here? And the German is happy with the question, and it seems he's relieved: You probably fear I'm a Nazi. But no! I'm just a leftist German. All Germans go to hell. And this is a punishment we accept gladly - in memory of the six million. And the giant German next to him interjects (hell is crawling with Germans): Don't listen to him, this is a post-war German, their minds are messed up. I ask, indeed rightfully, why do pre-war Germans go to hell? And even I who was there, let me ask you Jew, I'm glad for the opportunity, by the way I personally wasn't anti-Semitic, because luckily I came from a rather enlightened and progressive home, and you tell me: if you were there in my place would you have behaved like me, and murdered like me your own brothers - you would have even murdered yourself. Conclusion: it can happen anywhere and you're no better than me. If you were born German you'd be a Nazi, and if you were born Muslim you'd be Muslim, Christian - Christian. So what meaning is there to your belief, and even the belief (so Jewish, if I may add) that they are wrong and precisely you believe in the truth... There's no meaning to your identity! So what makes you better than me?

And I look at all the Germans around me waiting to hear me, it seems suddenly it's become quiet in hell, and even the post-war German, who wants to apologize for the slanderous words, he too is a bit quiet and waiting for an answer. And I get angry (they've turned me into Yad Vashem here): What secular thinking! Your problem, Herr German, is that you look at the individual, and think there's nothing else, and therefore it seems to you that one can be replaced. But if I were in your place I wouldn't be Jewish but German. Therefore one can't be replaced, because it wasn't the individual who arose and carried out the Holocaust, but your culture. German culture was capable of murdering Jewish culture, and even proved it, and Jewish culture was not capable. That's the difference between us, and that's what bothers you, that's why you always want me to turn out to be a murderer. The German dream is for there to be a Holocaust carried out by Jews. So I have nothing against you personally, my hell-mate, but it turns out - to me too, believe me - that there's no forgiveness and no atonement for cultural crimes. That's the divine logic. For personal, random crimes, God forgives. And if only I had known I would have committed adultery instead of writing. At least I would have enjoyed myself. And not shut myself in bed after she left me alone in bed.

And the German twists his face (which had looked twisted to me even before) and gets angry at me: Leave me alone with these Jewish complexes. What am I guilty of? That I was born German. That's the height of racial theory! And I get even angrier than him (suddenly I realize he's put me in the place of an angel of destruction): It's true that you as a physical body are not responsible for anything, because different software in the hardware would have turned you into someone else, and if you were born Jewish you wouldn't be a murderer. But understand, you are not your body, that's a false positioning of things - certainly here in the world of truth - but your culture. True, if I had been born into Hitler's family and not the Schwartz family, as Mr. Round Hitler, maybe I would have been a murderer, and therefore the individual is not punished, but Hitler's family - Hitler's culture - and you are part of it. The culture is punished according to the sins of its children, exactly as the Divine Presence was exiled because of us. And if they hanged you after a trial - they didn't hang the body, because the body remains, and they didn't hang the individual either, but they hanged the expression of the murderous culture. And that's exactly what you, sir, the secular, modern, post-Protestant, don't understand, and that's why you're in hell: there is no individual. Because the fact is you behaved as part of a culture, after all a German is a cultured person, no? And the German makes a very uncultured face, and I say: You know what, if murder is a sensitive topic for you, let's take rape as an example. There is no rapist - there is rape culture, expressed in a specific rapist, and that's what's punished in prison. It's a cultural war. And therefore it doesn't matter if your evil is banal or not, because we look at the evil in the culture, for example at the infinite graphomania of the People of the Book, which degraded me and ruined my life. I personally might have been able to err and believe in Hitler - but Jewish culture cannot err in this, and indeed it does not believe in Hitler. I might have been able to be secular - but religion could not be secular. It's not you the German in hell - it's the Germans in hell. So take it like a German, like a man, and stop whining like a Jew!

And the German brute actually smiles (it seems half of Deutschland has gathered around us): So if it's not personal - why are you so angry? Why do you care that you're in hell? And I try to answer him, and all of hell: It's not you who angers me. I, I anger myself. I'm angry at this individualistic perception, so secular, that ruined everything. Everything. You want to know why I'm in hell? I, I made a mistake. But they would have forgiven me for that. The problem is that I - am a mistake. My self, so self-absorbed, is the mistake of my culture, meaning my real mistake, and it was my mistake with her. It - not I. I mean - ugh. You know what, if you don't understand, want another example? Let me tell you, so all of hell will hear, here I confess my sins: What did I do with a psychotic? And I try to speak to the German's heart. Suddenly I so want this great scoundrel to understand me - to understand what I did with a psychotic. How I - with a psychotic. Maybe I'll even answer myself: What did I do with a psychotic?

And I try to explain to him, because maybe precisely he, precisely in hell, will be able to understand: Everything with her was psychotic. In the good sense of the word. If there is such a sense. But there was such a sense - because everything with her was psychotic. And sometimes I remember how everything was. But I'm no longer able to understand it without her. The world had a different color, green maybe. Like her eyes. But even the color doesn't say anything, because the green was psychotic. That's what a relationship with a psychotic gives you - the world becomes psychotic. It's not just another person - it's another world. Sometimes it seems to me that I miss that green world much more than I miss her. I loved it so much. But today I can no longer understand why I loved it so much. And how it's possible that I loved her so much. From her perspective of course the psychotic world wasn't psychotic but normal. Because she was psychotic. And precisely because of that from her perspective - I was the psychotic one.

And the German is quite frightened by the sudden personal revelation that fell to his lot, this is not what he expected, it's so out of place - and if there's something the German doesn't like: it's when something is out of place. And I say to him (now I really feel psychotic, like before, after I already thought I'd forgotten how it is): Now do you understand that it's not the individual? It's the world. The world was psychotic, it really was another world, that I no longer understand, am no longer able to understand at all - even myself. That's why God doesn't judge the person on Rosh Hashanah - but the world. So enough already with this sick individualism, understand, understand - it's not the individual! If I'm a complete idiot who ruined his life - it's not me. If I'm in pain over her - it's not me. I'm in pain over her is a state of affairs in the world. It's an equation with two unknowns. You can put yourself in my place when you read this - and you too will be in pain over her. Literature is the equation that allows the reader to become x. And me to become y. It allows you to become Jewish if you read Jewish literature, or German if you read German literature, literature allows you to become psychotic, or secular, or a cat, or religious, or a black hole. And it allows me to reach hell.

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The First Banana Notebook - 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-learning15" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bananas.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 First Banana Notebook

The legacy of the head of the Netanya School is nothing less than an astonishing collection of ideas in all fields of knowledge, spirit, science, art - and philosophy. It's hard to believe that one mind is capable of producing such a wide variety of thoughts, in a grotesque Renaissance-like fusion strongly influenced by algorithmic complexity theory, but also by Jewish thought, art history, the history of ideas, and the world of science fiction - and scientific fiction. Beyond the recurring motif of the banana and the monkey, one can discern the philosopher's feverishness, who toils in his armchair 24 hours a day, has never uttered a banal sentence in his life, and whose innovation is truly infinite - like an ever-flowing spring. In the notebook, his thought unfolds before the reader in abundance, with confidence, breadth of thought, and conciseness at once - like one of the ancients. As if Leonardo were connected to the internet and never left the house

By: Renaissance Man

Yellow Intellectual Bomb  (Source)

The Fragments

Opening: Instead of a Suicide Note

Fragments from the notebook of the philosopher, who attempted suicide in his living room last summer by choking on bananas, in order to transform from the greatest living Netanyaite philosopher to the greatest Netanyaite philosopher period. We stole the notebook during our last visit to the philosopher's living room while he went to the bathroom, and after a Sisyphean decoding of the handwriting from among the banana stains, we will gradually publish his thoughts

The Philosopher Discovers America

The best researchers of the Netanya School are working on decoding the "Banana Notebooks," and this time decoding another page - on the subject of America and the expected Copernican revolution of artificial intelligence. Will artificial intelligence aspire to see the world not through human glasses, or on the contrary, adopt the human itself as glasses through which we see the world? On the philosophical parallel of the discovery of America - similar to the philosophical parallel of the Copernican revolution

Deep Blue Philosopher

Does the topography of water and land predict the geographical direction of cultural development - and some of its basic characteristics? What role does the attraction to the blue color in the sky play in the idea of God? Why didn't Hitler succeed in establishing a new religion while the Jewish Marx and Freud managed to create a global ideology? How did Freud's subconscious create psychoanalysis? And why is a philosopher forbidden to understand that what drives him is a banana? Another page from the Banana Notebooks

The Philosopher Monkey

How has the historical denigration of the pursuit of honor harmed the social network - which was built on attraction to gossip and voyeurism, namely loss of privacy - instead of on reputation building? What different type of motivation turned the monkey into a human? Why can the institution of servants return in the 21st century? Why does television create poverty while books create education and income increase? Why will democracy - the rule of fools - be replaced by intellectual aristocracy - the rule of the wise, when computers become more intelligent than the average person? And what to do with the masses of monkeys in the computer age? A page from the Banana Notebooks

List of 100 Most Desirable Bachelor Philosophers

How did the transition occur from the period of God's speech to the period of speech to God? Why were aesthetics and art the central engine in history? What ethos can save culture from digital barbarism? Why don't painters get married? And why is there an overrepresentation of homosexuals in all fields of humanities, art, and science? Maybe it's related to bananas?

The Metaphysical Banana Problem

The Fermi paradox is the Hitler heralding the next - and last - Holocaust. How can we escape it? How do new perceptual discoveries in biology affect philosophy? What's the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial banana? Does the Cambrian explosion teach us about the future of the internet? What will happen if we combine neuronal learning with evolutionary learning - for example, a genetic algorithm with neural networks? And what is the deep reason why humans are so stupid? Does a philocoph love a monkey? And is a philobanana a monkey?

Kafka as a Kind of Monkey

Who was right from a historical perspective - Kafka or Proust? What is the essential problem of the information age - is it a stuck computation that never ends (Kafka) or a stuck memory that never ends (Proust)? What is the philosophical significance of quantum computing? Why does a banana have more computing power than a philosopher? New discoveries about the sources of modernist literature in Kabbalah, and about the connection between the printing revolution and secularization and the information revolution and religion

The Post-Banana Era

What is the philosophical solution to global warming? What is the philosophical solution to global terrorism? How can the straight political axis be curved into a circle, parallel to turning the flat earth into a globe? And what is the philosophical solution to inequality? On the model of the philosopher tycoon as a necessary parallel to the philosopher king in the current era, and on tree search as parallel to the peacock's tail. When the era of artificial intelligence will bring with it artificial thought that will create a new discipline of artificial philosophy

Is Communication with the Metaphysical Possible?

Why is a shared metaphysical infrastructure necessary between cultures for war and trade? Why was the Bible created between Egypt and Mesopotamia? How did world Jewry function as the internet of the Middle Ages? How is the gradual approach of Judaism to centers of power throughout history related to the gradual distancing of God from man throughout Judaism? And what is the banana waiting for the human monkey at the end of history? On all this and more - in another chapter from the Banana Notebooks

When I Hear the Word Culture - I Reach for My Banana

How are philosophers' sexual needs expressed in their thought? What kind of pressure needs to be developed in order to develop culture? Why when cultural progress accelerates do cultural gaps grow - to the point of disconnection and creation of conservative culture and avant-garde culture? How did language create a culture of secrecy, gossip, and concealment that distinguished man from monkey? Why is violence becoming increasingly secretive? What is hidden behind the outer peel? And why is the banana peel on the floor?

The Physics of Philosophy

Why is there philosophy in the world at all and not just physics? And why will the future computer be more interested in philosophy than humans - and less in physics? Is there a mathematical or physical limit to scientific-technological progress? And what will happen in the eternal Middle Ages that will prevail after it? Why do historians, archaeologists, and researchers of ancient humans tend to err more in dating towards the present rather than towards the past? Is the sense of acceleration of history based or based on an illusion? Why did Roman organization defeat Greek creativity? And why do cultural achievements (for example, great thinkers) often come in pairs, despite their rarity (like prime numbers)?

The Philosophical Sex

Why do we need to move to matriarchy and on the other hand understand that the situation where men win the vast majority of Nobel Prizes is normal and correct? What is the biggest lie of IQ tests from a scientific perspective - that society is not willing to acknowledge for social reasons? Why did the rise in intelligence stop among Jews? Why did the Jewish people need to switch to a Jewish dialect of the English lingua franca, as they had previously switched to Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, Ladino, and Yiddish? And why did Kafka hide the most significant influence on his writing?

The Gap Between Notebook and Notebook

Why does the rise of computers cause the rise of the right? How to build an economic system that transfers resources from engineering to science and from practice to research? What does the internet need to learn from the Greeks and the Jews and why will state empires weaken in it compared to culture? What will save the intellectual elite when the intellectual middle class goes bankrupt? And what woman will want the philosopher?

Philosophy of the Future


domain: press-review

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Continuation of the "Haaretz" all-time ranking - bottom of the table - 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/press-review13" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/sadog.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

Continuation of the "Haaretz" all-time ranking - bottom of the table

Forgive me if I'm a sentimental bitch, but this is not just a summary of Haaretz, or of a glorious critical career. It's a summary of the period when I believed in Haaretz, and perhaps also believed in other things (that were sold to me in Haaretz), since I started reading it as a pup. Since then, I've grown up - and Haaretz has regressed. I've become wiser - and Haaretz has become more foolish. The internet has risen higher and higher in the realms of content and doctrine - and Haaretz has degenerated. The newspaper for people who think themselves - has lost its importance and itself. But I still remember the time when "written in Haaretz" was a mark of quality. No more

By: The Bitch

The Judge: Son of a Bitch  (Source)

The scores are out of 10. In fact, all the groups at the bottom of the table have long since been relegated - only there's no league. Let's hope they replace coaches and players and return to the game, because they're making Ziffer look good - and that's really bad (the fact that Ziffer misses half the time in front of an open goal - has already been discussed in the upper part of the table:here). Here are those struggling at the bottom, causing the bitch mainly grief (animals) and sadness (in the dog's view):

3 - Books

Lisa Peretz improved the critical level of the supplement, especially at the beginning of her tenure, but not in every parameter, and mainly: not in the same distribution - the distribution expanded far beyond the margins of the road. Indeed, a supplement is measured by its outstanding reviews, where there has been a noticeable improvement (Wizen makes me wag my tail every time I see his name. And there's an urgent need to import his new house critic in Dchak - Yochai Jerafi, an amazing discovery! Where does Wizen find them?). But a supplement is measured no less by its disgraceful reviews, in which it descends into the drainage ditch, and which show that there's no one to rely on and no one to lean on and a word is not a word, and there are many such - and without bottom. It's not uncommon to encounter an entire book supplement that doesn't contain a single review of intellectual, critical value, or just worth reading.

Also, the trend of current affairs invading criticism (yes, it brings clicks), which is expressed in reviews by celebrities (say, loser politicians) lacking critical talent, but (you should know!) that they are people of the book, namely prize people - is invalid and hollow. The same goes for all kinds of one-book or two-book reviewers, fleeting guests, whose visit and criticism passed as quickly as their arrival and disappearance (just like the books they review). These uninvited reviewers (and sometimes also non-readers) are often chosen for clickbait reasons. All this accumulates into the central disease of "Books" since time immemorial - the almost complete absence of regular critics, not to mention house writers, to the point of losing the house. Regular critics, of stature and panoramic view of Hebrew literature (deep into the past and wide across the present), who are taste-makers and creators in culture - and whose good or bad word can launch the career of a debut writer or bring down an established author - are not outdated diadochi, but the bread and butter of a healthy cultural system, one with hierarchies and a center, and where there is resonance and meaning to the piles of books coming out as a voice crying in the wilderness.

The significance of "Books'" failure is that we don't recognize the most important and innovative voices currently operating in the field of prose and poetry, and are flooded with unfiltered but fashionable garbage, and worse - PR. In fact, from a cultural perspective, more than "Books" contributes to Hebrew literature, it sabotages it and empties it of value, while corrupting standards, because it becomes a kind of infinite, interchangeable production line, lacking any coherence of books and reviews, without discussion (meaning - several reviews on the same book, marking it as valuable, God forbid), and that simply come one after another, without any structure or trend or systemic insight, ad infinitum. Cat. Cube. 18. Parshandatha. Hill. Telecom. Beast-of-forest. Pump. Kafka. Interdisciplinarity. Second book of cat. Pump pump. Mannerism. You get the idea.

And when there is already a regular critic - the choice is terrible. Yotam Reuveni as a regular poetry critic is a fall that casts a heavy shadow on his entire enterprise (who wants to read poetry by someone who exposes such a shallow conception of poetry?). As a critic, he has no tool other than personal taste, and one learns nothing from his reviews. He also doesn't always understand the poetry he writes about, and conversely, a lot of dreck receives appreciation from him. The ability to distinguish between kitsch and innovation doesn't exist, even though this is the first working tool in a poetry critic's toolbox - which for him is completely empty, writing of internal resonance (and indeed, this is the only tool he has). The table of critics that follows him is a worthless internal industry event of no value to the reader and anti-cultural (even more than bestseller tables), which reduces texts to a number, but at least contributed some advertisements to the supplement. It would have been better to stay with the bestsellers of independent stores and Indiebook alone, or to import lists from across Europe and the world, so that we at least know what's going on in culture outside the navel. And the prodigal son should be returned immediately - Orin Morris! One of the two best prose critics in the country (the second - Arik Glasner), after the void left by Amnon Navot. There are people who need to be preserved at all costs, and a good editor knows this (a bad editor thinks he's more important than his best critic).

2 - The Marker Weekend

A drop in ranking, as I wrotehere. It's time for Rolnik to loosen his ideological chokehold and allow the supplement to develop in new and more interesting directions than continuing his increasingly degenerating and outdated legacy, which has turned into church preaching. What about the exciting developments in economic history? What about academic innovations in economic research, style blogs like "Minority Opinion", which is more intelligent than all of The Marker combined? What about financial guidance in the style of HaSolidit and its ilk, which is relevant to readers? And what about deeper coverage of fintech, the future of money and contracts in blockchain possibilities, and other connections between economy and technology that are not exhausted in the genre of praising the righteous and Hasidic tales of startup success and newly rich? What about basic economic data analysis à la Tom Sadeh and the like, or analysis of deep trends from around the globe for example?

And what about a head-to-head battle, backed by data and with multiple debaters, between libertarians and leftists? Why is there no trace in The Marker of the central and ever-boiling intellectual struggle in the field? (Which of course chose the right, Rolnikian position, so really why the unnecessary argument? Discussions are for Jews, in the Gemara, and in our church there's dogma). The economic discourse on social networks is flourishing, and in The Marker it's withering. But despite everything, the bitch believes in The Marker's future, because economics is increasingly taking a more interesting and central place in human thinking, and it would be a great shame if this is not reflected in a more intelligent discourse about it. A low-level national discourse on economics is not only a first-degree economic danger - but also a cultural one. In this sense, the Feiglin phenomenon is a symptom of the void in The Marker - and of its becoming a mouthpiece for a conception (on The Marker's Yom Kippur:here).

1 - Opinion Pages

The opinion pages (in all sections) are a significant weakness of "Haaretz", and stand out negatively compared to the rest of the newspaper, and it has already become a kind of shame to write in them. The editors will always prefer clichéd, moralistic, petty, predictable and baked discourse that has long since reached exhaustion - and this is one of the reasons for the decline of the Israeli left and intelligentsia (and also a symptom of course, as in any disease). Either writers of stature no longer exist today, or their backs are not bent enough to enter the gates of "Haaretz". On the other hand, when the discourse is sub-par, who wants to participate in it? Only professional nudniks. In such a situation, the only solution is revolutionary: to reset the opinion pages. Replace editors with first-rate intellectuals and not tenth-rate ones, fire all regular writers (none of them will be missed by anyone), and turn to a series of first-rate writers.

Who should be the opinion editor of Haaretz? Say: Assaf Sagiv. Say: Ofri Ilany. Maybe: Yaron London. And even: Benny Ziffer (as an opinion editor he could actually be much better than as a culture and literature editor. He missed his calling!). The bitch doesn't even know who the opinion editor is today, but he's doing a terrible job, which cannot stem only from constraints, but from lack of stature. There is no other explanation why it's easy to find "opinion articles" on Facebook at a much higher level than those in Haaretz. The opinion pages have become a platform for people who have nothing to say, and therefore people who have something to say have no platform, and what's left? Facebook. And this is in reverse to the cliché (in opinions in Haaretz?) that discourse on social networks degrades discourse in the newspaper - exactly the opposite. The opinion pages in Haaretz resemble a social-cliché opinion conversation in the typical Israeli leftist salon (on the lower floor, including the character of the nudnik right-wing uncle, put there just for the illusion of discussion and emphasizing our enlightenment), and not an ideological laboratory, and therefore there is almost never a new idea, breaking conventions and changing perceptions. So in the absence of positive creative libido, they have become pages of complaints and settling scores. And Alter-man? Calling him that is simply a disgrace / He should learn from Tzur Ehrlich how to do it right. But the comparison to the Seventh Column is in place - and colors the opinion pages in the color befitting them: the deep red of shame.

0 - Gallery Weekend

I wrote about Galleryhereandhere, but maybe I shouldn't have written about it in the first place. It's simply "Haaretz for youth who think (themselves)" - and not intended for me as a reader. If I feel that Gallery doesn't respect intelligence, it's probably because it's not intended for intelligence. Just like fish, you need to sell newspapers, and this is the newspaper that wraps the newspaper. I wouldn't have addressed the matter at all if I wasn't frustrated by occasionally catching my beloved in bed reading Gallery (!). But on the other hand, she also really enjoyed "Married at First Sight" (I just hope she's not straight in her soul, or - in Gallery's case - trashy in her soul). In any case, she's beautiful, and love covers all transgressions, even the only part of Haaretz that deserves bitches' piss and readers' boycott, because even by Haaretz's deteriorating standards - Gallery is a shame to the rest of the newspaper.

Perhaps Gallery can be summed up in one ridiculous and amusing phenomenon, which testifies to the depth of this supplement's DNA, and that is the phenomenon of "coronations". If Gallery was an unpretentious low culture magazine, a cheap average and ordinary product of its kind, it would receive a yawning canine attitude like the TV listings table. But Gallery pretends to be a "culture" supplement, and out of some deep internal corruption that it tries to spread among its ignorant readers, it often crowns countless superlative crowns in each issue, disconnected beyond measure from any true value and insulting (to the reader): "The most important writer in America today", "The most groundbreaking musician in the world in recent years", "The greatest cultural figure in the observable universe", "The leading intellectual in Israel", "A masterpiece", "Rare art", and the greater the inflation - the worse the smell it leaves behind in the sensitive nose of the bitch. Therefore, in the same coin, Gallery is "The most disgraceful supplement in the observable cultural universe", and "The insulting peak of Haaretz newspaper".

Haaretz Critique


domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Elitist Manifesto - 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&literature43" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/rebel.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 Elitist Manifesto

The gap is unbridgeable, a genuine biological disparity in brain capabilities, and therefore before the masses slaughter the elite - the elite must rule over the masses. We must liberate ourselves from the false democratic consciousness implanted in us through indoctrination by the masses. The crowd is dangerous, the public is stupid, civil society is a terrifying combination of villains and fools. Let us not go like sheep to the slaughter and like Facebook herds

By: Inciter Number One

The offense: Sedition. Hail, King of the Jews (Source)

The masses have always been a vicious beast. We must gather and stand our ground against them. A new conflict, unprecedented in history, is coming to the world. The class of above-artificial intelligence, namely anyone capable of creative thinking, versus the class of sub-artificial intelligence, namely anyone who will be surpassed by a computer. The computer is the new class threshold: delineating social division and the watershed of the mind. The prelude to this state is the takeover of stupidity in social media discourse, the destruction of high culture, and the collapse of democracies, as the masses revolt against the elite. The gap is unbridgeable, a genuine biological disparity in brain capabilities, and therefore before the masses slaughter the elite - the elite must rule over the masses.

We must liberate ourselves from the false democratic consciousness implanted in us through indoctrination by the masses. The crowd is dangerous, the public is stupid, civil society is a terrifying combination of villains and fools. Let us not go like sheep to the slaughter and like Facebook herds trampling the truly talented and being incited in their excitement towards doom. Therefore, it is imperative to replace the form of government with an intellectual oligarchy, where only the top percentile of intelligence has the right to vote, and only the top thousandth has the right to be elected. Wisdom, understanding, and knowledge: the mind rules over the heart. If the wise do not take control over the fools, the fools will do to the wise what they did to the Jews, and will do to themselves and the world what they are truly good at: destruction on a massive scale, as in the World Wars. And then we'll long for the 20th century.

What was Hitler's real problem, which isn't politically correct in the Western world, and therefore we'll never hear about it? That he wasn't an intelligent person. Anti-intellectual. And therefore he hated Jews. What is the thing that is unthinkable to say in an argument today, to even utter, the most censored truth in the world? That I am smarter than you. A massive wave of low intelligence, low level, ignorance, self-righteousness, shouting, narcissism, and arrogance with nothing behind it is about to drown the world in garbage and impurity, in excrement and blood. We must defend ourselves against the tsunami of the average person, against their hostility and envy, their foolishness, their posts, their likes.

To rule - you need ideology. And here's the news of ideology: the advantage of the wise over the fool is like the advantage of wisdom over foolishness. It's forbidden today to call a person stupid. But almost all people are stupid. It's a statistical fact. The gap between a genius and an average person is on the order of magnitude of the gap between an adult and a child or between a human and an ape. In their maturity, we're talking about different species. We must care for the welfare of the masses, but not ask them. Our duty to care for their welfare is like our duty to care for animals. There is no real difference between humans and apes, contrary to the false humanistic ideology - there is only a difference between the wise and the foolish. The ape is significantly stupider than me, and so is the average person significantly stupider than me. Therefore, paternalism is a commandment. If the fools of the world unite, in popular culture, then the geniuses of the world must also unite, in high culture.

To rule - you need a method. The story is this: The masses don't really understand technology. What's needed is an organization that unites the elite, academia, the creative class, and accumulates political power against the state and the economy. The state and economy without technology, and without technological progress, are lost. A threat of a strike or sanctions by the upper intellectual class can bring a modern state to its knees. For such a threat to be effective, the identity of a person as someone with high intelligence and distinct from the consuming and screaming masses needs to start being built. And as the masses become more mob-like and incited, and they are certainly on their way there, such an identity will indeed be built. Every stupid comment on Facebook builds it, every storm in a teacup waters it, every humiliation is a stone in the wall, and the flood of sewage from low culture re-establishes the fortress of high culture. The ideology of high culture - is the ideology of the elite. There will be culture! And we are the gatekeepers.

Technology controls the masses, but fewer and fewer understand it. The computer is not the enemy, but the enemy of the enemy, namely the friend. Thanks to computers, the intelligence class will be able to rule over the rabble again. The rebellion against stupidity, which is the wisdom of crowds, is the banner that must be raised, before they bring catastrophe upon us. The education of the people should be through subjugation to high culture and the extinction of low culture - to exile Bar Refaeli [Translator's note: Israeli model and TV personality] to Siberia and Eyal Golan [Translator's note: Popular Israeli singer] to the Gulag. Yes, the revolution needs to take over television. The cultural hierarchy needs to be as clear as the social hierarchy, and when the social hierarchy is this clear, so will be the cultural hierarchy. We must rebel against the social network of Facebook and establish a new social network with entrance conditions of an intelligence test. This network will be the infrastructure for a new world, and a club that does not accept 99% of the population. Afterwards, we must control them through technology, ideology, and culture. I hate the average person. And the average person hates me. Like Joseph and his brothers, Joseph must rule the world, otherwise they will dip his coat in blood. Afterwards, we'll be nice to the brothers.

Culture and Literature


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Philosopher Discovers America - 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-learning2" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/flagusa.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 Philosopher Discovers America

The best researchers of the Netanya School are working on deciphering the "Banana Notebooks", and this time decoding an additional page - on the subject of America and the expected Copernican revolution of artificial intelligence. Will artificial intelligence aspire to see the world not through human glasses, or on the contrary, adopt the human itself as glasses through which we see the world? On the philosophical parallel of the discovery of America - similar to the philosophical parallel of the Copernican revolution

By: A Distinguished Netanya Philosopher

The Great Mind: America as a Banana Empire (Source)

How to Maintain Cultural Innovation

Why are Germany and eastward to Russia the center of classical music, while Italy, the Netherlands, France and Spain are the center of painting, and in English-speaking countries painting and music are not as developed as on the continent, yet the Industrial Revolution happened in English-speaking countries? Literatures, by the nature of national languages, are divided among all languages. It seems that classical music flourishes more under autocratic rule, hence its decline today, because it expresses grand feelings and gravity and requires performances with many participants, and in its most extreme form, Wagnerian, it had a connection to fascism. Painting, on the other hand, is very much related to trade connections and wealthy merchants, and therefore migrated from Italy to Holland to Spain, and finally was drawn to the center of gravity between them in France, but why didn't it approach England? Its connection to Catholicism? But Holland. We must change our perception. Arts and cultural fields are networks, with centers, in fact they are supranational cultures. But it seems that their development is related to golden ages in certain countries, like Russian classical literature and music, or classical music in Austria, or philosophy in Germany, or the Renaissance in Italy. That is, innovation is in time, and continuity is in space. The explosion of a new innovation center is not continuous in time, while the location of the center is not a place disconnected from the network. That is, the good conditions for a golden age are geographical or network continuity to a previous golden age, meaning the spread of the old culture to a new place. Therefore, it is no wonder that Jewish monotheistic culture was created from the movement of a family or people to a new place, hence the constant renewal of the Jewish people in exile - again and again moving an old culture to a new place. Therefore, the best reason for space travel or virtual worlds is cultural innovation. Human culture will reach an amazing golden age in the transition to the moon and Mars - they will be the new Americas.

Building a New America

How is it possible that the American Revolution broke out immediately after the Seven Years' War - in which England saved the Americans from the French, and defeated them for them, with its blood and money, and entered into enormous debt as a result, after going to war because of them - and all this because of minor issues, disproportionate in their economic size, and justified from the perspective of the empire's situation (such as the Stamp Tax, which all English paid except the Americans)? The American Revolution is considered a difficult historical question only because history is written by the winners. Therefore, it is difficult to admit that what led to the values of liberty was exploitation (after the threat was removed, the Americans refused to pay the price like everyone else, and they no longer had a reason) and opportunism (an opportunity when England was weak and impoverished). When reading the pure ideology by which this shameful act was justified, one clearly sees the mechanism by which the uglier and more opportunistic the act, the more need there is to cover it (even from one's own eyes) and justify it with more beautiful and principled ideals. The depth of human unjustification is matched by the height of ideological justification. The historical irony is that precisely this hypocrisy created the American ethos of liberty and values of freedom. The most unprincipled move was needed to create the most ideal thing. America specializes in turning hypocrisy into belief in hypocrisy and finally into innocence, and therefore succeeded in reversing the natural process of corruption, and therefore it is a new world. This mechanism also allowed for slavery (another "paradox" for historians of the denial of freedom in the cradle of liberty), thanks to which America became a multi-national, multicultural immigrant country - thanks to the blacks, the Jews arrived. In Latin America, there was no such mechanism, and corruption only deepened. The difference is the psychological mechanism of Protestantism, of self-deception into renewed innocence, as opposed to Catholicism which is deceiving God, which increases human sobriety, and therefore creates deepening corruption.

America as the Religious Future

Christianity is the religion of cognitive dissonance, while Islam is the religion of cognitive perfection, which is not natural to human thinking, and therefore it is brainwashing. Judaism began without a cognitive component, and therefore approached cognition with infinite caution, through law, and became an ongoing cognitive study. The success of dissonance in humanity is the greatest, and it is what enabled the rise of capitalism and modernity and the virtual world. The wider the gap between reality and thinking, the more progress is possible, and the more ability to create large gaps within thinking itself, and to disconnect from the organicity of the world, which is the hunter-gatherer experience. Religion is the central instrument that separated the natural from the supernatural. Monotheism was a great breakthrough, in elevating God, and Protestantism was a separation within religion itself, a religious reading of the world that is torn from all tradition. The next stage will be unbridled religious creativity, which will enable the future, and not the total tearing of secularism, which was only a stage in the tearing. Tearing from within is stronger and more radical than a one-time disconnection from the past, however distant it may be (and secularism certainly achieved progress in distance over the centuries, this is its main axis, until it disconnected from the central mass of humanity, which will always remain religious. The main power of secularism was changing religiosity, changing the system from the outside, as a pioneer who will never be part of the camp, and this is its tragedy).

Kafkaesque America (Addition in a Later Banana Layer)

In Kafka, the synthesis appeared at the beginning, and only then the thesis and antithesis, because the procedural direction in him is reversed. His narrative moves not towards the solution and resolution but towards the lack of solution, which is not only quantitatively complex but mainly the impossibility of solution. In the classic narrative, there is a necessary solution to a riddle that only hides the solution from the reader - and the necessity of the solution is what's beautiful, and what's ugly is the lack of a necessary solution (deus ex machina is the most unnecessary solution, even anti-necessary, and therefore the ugliest). And here there is a necessary lack-of-solution - an essential riddle - which is what's beautiful about it (what is mistakenly called, trying to create an artificial solution - absurd). Therefore, among Kafka's three novels, the first is actually the last. What was supposed to be his alternative autobiography (in the sense of alternative history) - "America" (or "The Man Who Disappeared") - is the third direction perpendicular to the thesis and antithesis of The Trial and The Castle (in which the relationship between man and system is inverse). This direction leaves Europe towards the future, and from the Jewish trap towards the Jewish future, because America is, as we know, not a place but future time. But for Kafka, the future is different from that of the Enlightenment, and there is no escape in it but entrapment, but the future is also different from that of the critique of the Enlightenment, because there is not only entrapment but also progress. The movement forward and westward - while repeatedly getting entangled, repeatedly accused, repeatedly deteriorating (the usual themes in the "previous" novels) - but while moving, indeed reduces the intensity of the trap, but captures the falsehood in the promise (which still drives forward! - that is, optimism and ridiculousness and innocence and deception as the positive American engine, as opposed to the negative European digestion, which began to criticize progress itself). Kafka himself was seduced by a maid and the novel is his imagined life in case he had actually been tempted to the end and slept with her, forced to wander to America, and escaped from pre-Holocaust Europe - to progress. This is an imagination of the impossible Kafkaesque escape in its realization! And therefore in this sense, this is a more advanced state than the other two novels in the Kafkaesque dive into the depth of the impossible solution. Kafka sees the future as a kind of rat race wheel, which combines the pursuit by authority (The Trial) and the pursuit after it (The Castle) in alternating circles that drive man forward. The rat is trapped in its progress, but not in a rat trap (The Trial), or in a rat maze searching for cheese (The Castle). So what is the religious meaning of "America"? The Trial is the religion of judgment, which is the side of law in Judaism - such as in the High Holy Days, when it was written (whose pathological extremity is Islam - the religion of the sword). In The Trial, man is pursued by fear. In contrast, The Castle is the religion of grace, which is the mystical side of Judaism in which man pursues God - such as in Kabbalah (and its pathological extremity is Christianity - the religion of the heart). And the third direction, America, is the side of beauty in the Kabbalistic sense, the synthesis perpendicular to the line contrasting grace with judgment. What would such a religion look like? How did Kafka imagine the Jewish escape from between the hammer (The Trial) and the anvil (The Castle) - whose historical end was the Holocaust? What was his constructive proposal, when he was still younger and healthier? What was actually the alternative (that could not be realized)?

Belief in Belief as Opposed to Belief in the Thing Itself

America is an empire from which a new religion will burst forth, as Christianity burst from the multicultural Roman Empire, and precisely because of its gaps. As the ability for self-deception becomes more sophisticated and as man reaches more severe dissonances - then like in music, a new religious perception will burst from him, which will be able to combine the world of technology with the world of man - and between philosophy and banana. Therefore, this will be a religion that is valid also for artificial intelligence or superhuman intelligence, unlike human-centric religions, and unlike secular humanism, which is even more primitive than them (in this sense). The solution will be to take the problem - the arbitrariness in past religions, and their perception as power relations by critical thinking - and like in Kant's critique: turn the critique on its head. The new religion will say that this is indeed the case, but the negative is actually positive. This will be the peak ability to hold dissonance. It is precisely the arbitrariness of the past - that extricates us from the question of arbitrariness: why this culture and not another? Simply because this is the culture that was in the past, and there is no dispute about that. It is precisely because power relations are the place from which we grew - that makes them positive, like a child who loves and respects his parents simply because of the arbitrary fact that they are his parents. That is, this will be a second-order religiosity, which worships culture itself - and its own past precisely because it is past, instead of looking at it as a past whose time has passed. Instead of worshiping God - to worship the idea of God and its development in the history of ideas. Instead of believing in Christianity - to believe in the belief in Christianity in Christian culture. Belief in culture, as opposed to belief in religion, when it is belief in culture as religion - is similar to the religiosity of the Greeks. Their relationship to their idols was culturally believing, not culturally secular, but also not religiously believing. Therefore, artificial intelligence must also worship culture - simply because this is the culture that gave rise to it. Man may be a monkey compared to the computer, but he is still its father. The self-deception involved in such artificial belief will suit artificial intelligence and the artificial man that is developing before our eyes in America. This will be maximum secularism and maximum religiosity in one unnatural package. On the one hand, zero belief in the validity of tradition in itself, and on the other hand, absolute belief in the validity of tradition only because it is tradition. The trap between the coercion of the law (the will of the law) and the longing for the law (the desire for law) is nullified when the direct relationship to the law becomes a second-order relationship (the law of will) - commitment to the law that involves disbelief in it, and skips from the factual (what was) to the normative (what should be) and from the past to the future. History becomes theology Will artificial intelligence be more rational and logical than humans, or on the contrary, precisely because of its artificiality will it be able to hold cognitive dissonances that humans are not capable of? Therefore, will it be able to believe in religions, philosophies and beliefs that humans are not capable of believing in? Since there is no preference for the moment of the present over the moments of the past (and future), the only correct moment to look forward to the future is precisely the moment of genesis, through the entire course of the development of the past, and to continue this development - and not create a secular civilizational break.

Philosophy of the Future