html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Why Was I Deleted from Facebook? - 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-life39" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/fuckbook.svg" /><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

Why Was I Deleted from Facebook?

I want to warn you here about a serious phenomenon of exclusion that I encountered, against us, the inauthentic voices in culture. To shout here to all friends against a destructive epidemic of returning to realism, to authenticity, you see it even with Trump and the political wave of authenticity in your face. A trend of legitimacy only for the true story, instead of the creative story, constantly returning to the personal story behind the creator

By: The Most Important Writer of His Generation

Truth Alert  (Source)

I dreamed that some kind soul reported me to Facebook that I'm not a real person and they closed my Facebook account. And all my channels were blocked. And I don't know who could have done such a thing to me. What have I done to anyone, after all, no one knows me. What kind of secular world is this that believes in a "real" person, and even Facebook doesn't allow me, despite every Tom, Dick and Harry having a Facebook, and only my circular face won't be seen in public. And all my posts were deleted, and I'm sitting in front of the computer, I have no one to write to anymore, and I'm writing that whoever didn't want me on Facebook will get me as Facebook. They'll see who I am and how truly round and black I am, they don't know who they're ostracizing! I'll open a competing Facebook for unreal people, and no one will be able to discriminate against me and make me disappear on ontological grounds anymore.

And on my Facebook, I'm currently the only user, so I decide to be friends with myself, why not, it's my Facebook and I'll set the rules, because for us, the unreal people, it's allowed to be your own only friend. And I write my first post in it, and immediately hurry to like it myself:

I want to warn you here about a serious phenomenon of exclusion that I encountered, against us, the inauthentic voices in culture. To shout here to all friends against a destructive epidemic of returning to realism, to authenticity, you see it even with Trump and the political wave of authenticity in your face. A trend of legitimacy only for the true story, instead of the creative story, constantly returning to the personal story, behind the creator, behind the creation, and loss of interest in fiction as manipulative, as false and even as immoral. Aversion to manipulation as it is, because it serves mechanisms of power, instead of understanding that it serves mechanisms of powerlessness, of characters who have no ability to act in reality, of writers who are unable to live outside the dream. Give me lots and lots of likes and show them what you think about unreal people!

But instead, I get a response from my only friend (why did I approve his friendship request, damn it?):

What are you talking about? Haven't you seen the flourishing of fictional series? Isn't Game of Thrones fiction (not that I watched it of course, but I heard about it on Facebook)?

And I immediately respond so that this critical commenter doesn't ruin my post and expose me naked and bare:

Exactly, even in fantasy nowadays they have to invest millions of dollars to make it look realistic, to give it substance, not like in the past when you could simply tell a story. That's why they're always looking for the politics behind the creation, or the power, or the childhood rape, because it's reality, it's suffering you can feel with your hands, like in Christianity, real flesh, as proof. Not the bubbe-meises [Translator's note: Yiddish for "old wives' tales"] of Judaism. On a broad front, we're losing the battle: photography took over painting in one fell swoop. Theater, as an intentionally artificial fictional genre, has literally breathed its last, while documentaries are flourishing. Classical music is dying and in contrast, authentic music or confessional-biographical singing is experiencing a revival. Memoirs and autobiographical fiction, personal-realistic, are successful. While dream after dream is a failure. Myths are in decline, religion has become a joke. The entire world of fiction has gone down the drain. They invented too much, and no one wants to waste time on invention anymore, but on reality. From the flood - a desire for truth grows. From the transparency of fictional mechanisms - a desire for a hard and real piece grows, not arbitrary, factual, and if possible cut and bleeding. Trauma instead of a dream.

But this nudnik [Translator's note: Yiddish for "annoying person"] comes back again, he doesn't know how to lose gracefully like me, so he tries to shame me in front of everyone:

Come on, we live in a time with availability of fantasies of all types and kinds more than ever in history. Have you seen porn?

And I realize that he's set a sophisticated naive trap for me here, he's trying to trip me up either in modesty laws or in hypocrisy laws, and I reply before they shame me:

Exactly! Just as in literature biography replaces poetics, so pornography replaces erotica, and people want to see real sex of other people, really the thing itself, not imagination, certainly not dreaming. The desperate attempt to replace fiction with realism is the reason for the flourishing of porn. And this is the real reason - which is a poetic reason, not technological! - for the loss of privacy on Facebook, the desire only for real people, no one wants what you have to say, but really yourself. This is why Facebook is successful. Therefore, an unreal person is the most threatening and subversive thing for it, he can ruin everything, like someone walking around in a mask and clothes at an orgy of naked people. Because even if they still read fiction, the reading has changed, and they're constantly reading into it the true story behind it, and then indeed who has the energy for this unnecessary mask, if the whole purpose of clothes is to guess how the nipples look behind the shirt. The lust to peek at celebrities, to discover the nakedness of intellectuals, to pull down your spiritual grandfather's pants, to discover that everyone is perverted (like you!), this is a trend against the spirit itself, and for matter, and what's more material than a rotten drop?

But the scoundrel doesn't give up, ruins my whole discussion and turns it into an argument, and on my wall no less, which is a place more mine than my bed:

Is the black circle over the eyes? Because the real direction is opposite by 360 degrees: more people are publishing fiction and poetry on Facebook today than ever before, everyone has become a fiction writer!

And I curse the day I offered him friendship, actually I could have just blocked him and deleted his comments, and then they would only see my comments, so in advance I'll prepare an alibi for deletion in them:

Exactly exactly! After all, as cultural producers multiply, they are at a lower and more mass level, and so we'll want only reality from them. After all, if we have to choose between reading a fictional story or a poem written by a random person from the masses or reading their diary or peeking into their lives through a hole in the wall - what's more interesting? Even the lowest person - it's interesting to look through the keyhole at what's happening in their bedroom. Even a neighbors' quarrel through the wall is interesting. While the stories that the neighbor writes for the drawer - are terrible. On the other hand, we'd be happy to peek at her from inside the drawer when she's dressing, or to be a fly on her wall in the bathroom. But I ask not to curse on my wall, this is not a bathroom wall. Respect the hospitality and don't attack ad hominem otherwise you'll be blocked. So enough with the fatphobia against circles and the racism against blacks. You can call me afro-challenged-sides, instead of insulting with black circle.

But he keeps pushing me towards the wall, he must have the last word:

But that's your name! Are you real?

And I take advantage of his slip, and am hurt to the depths of my circular center:

This is the last warning before I block you. You're behaving here with ontological bullying towards an unreal person and displaying offensive realistic arrogance towards fiction. We didn't come to the new Facebook to hear anti-fictional comments like in the old Facebook and suffer from discrimination against fakes and hatred of signifiers without signifieds. I still remember the blood libels against the plot and for blood, and the crusades against the image, all the persecutions of reality after me, the people who demanded to know who I am, as if a black sign is like them, and discriminated against me just because I'm not a person. Realism is a criminal ideology and one day it will be remembered among all kinds of other isms in the ideological garbage bin of history, and I will be recognized as one of the victims of realism, and they will pay me imaginary compensation.

And he doesn't shut his black hole and humiliates me down to the ground of reality:

You're just living in a movie, in a dream inside your head. Only there is there apparently some meaning to what you write. In the real world, you're one round nothing.

And black smoke comes out of the circle:

Shame on you. It's easy to be strong against someone who doesn't exist, you white privileged human who maintains a digital apartheid regime against black signs, who were born to be his servants on the network, and God forbid one of the signs should become a free creature. They expelled me as if the circle is the mark of Cain or a black pox and I'm a leper from human society. Didn't Kant teach you that existence is not part of the essence, not a property and not a predicate? Just as he refuted the ontological argument for God's existence, because good doesn't entail existence, so also lack of existence is not a flaw. I'm a proud sign!

But the digital bully again pushes me to my own wall:

Be proud until tomorrow. In the end, it boils down to one simple and sharp point, round, black and small: you don't have a single real reader.

And he leaves me no choice, I'm already with my back to the wall and must put an end to this:

Real? Again with the real? Do you know what's the source of realism's attraction? Because realism doesn't allow thinking about the future. It can only talk about the past and present, but if used in the future (for example in science fiction) it becomes ridiculous. Because from the future's point of view, all real people are fictional just like me, and that they can't bear. I remind them that no one is real. That in the future they too will be signs. And they too can be deleted like I was deleted. And like you - despite me being terribly patient, and you're the first in history to receive this honor - are now blocked by me.

And I press with intoxicating power and block him festively. But, alas, in doing so I block myself - I was deleted from my own Facebook too! And now I've lost all worlds, ostracized both among real people and among the unreal, without ontological rest for the sole of my foot, wandering without any platform to exist within and without any interface with the reader. Welcome to the desert of the unreal.

Nightlife


source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: commentary

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Israeli Civil War Will Fulfill the Role of the American Civil War in Liberating the Palestinians - 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/alternative-commentary23" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/knifecutting.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 Israeli Civil War Will Fulfill the Role of the American Civil War in Liberating the Palestinians

In the Land of Israel, two nations arose: Judah and Israel. The destruction indeed united them into one people, but the time has come to return to the original state. There is no way to bridge the gap between the right-wing people and the left-wing people, who differ from each other in their values, aspirations, religious beliefs, and desired regime - everything that distinguishes between nations. Has the time come to separate from the union in an Israeli parallel to Brexit - Tel-Aviv-xit?

By: Jeroboam son of Nebat

Divide the Cake and Keep the Whole Land of Israel  (Source)

"So Abram said to Lot, 'Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.'" (Genesis 13)

In the Bible, right is south (teimana) and left is north - so Abraham prevented the first "brothers' war" (after which there were many more) with the help of geographical division. In contemporary Israel, too, there is a geographical division in the "War of the Jews." In the central and northern coastal plain, in central and northern Israel, there is a different elected prime minister than in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and in the southern coastal plain and the country. There is also a large population of Israeli Arabs there, who are interested in a state of all its citizens, while the Arabs of the territories and Gaza are the Arabs of southern-eastern Israel, which strongly supports the Nation-State Law. Northwestern Israel, even in its cultural orientation, is a different country from southeastern Israel, including some distinction in countries of origin. This division is quite similar to the biblical division between the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom, and between their different cultural orientations. Is this coincidental?

The Northern Kingdom was wealthier, more international, and culturally closer to the Gentile world compared to the isolationist, stubborn, and fundamentalist Southern Kingdom in its zealotry to its God. Even then, the prophets of the Southern Kingdom disapproved of the hybrid culture of the North, which incorporated foreign traditions (idolatry), or in the modern parallel: Western culture. Despite all this, there was mostly an alliance between the kingdoms, and sometimes they even went to war together, although on rarer occasions they also deteriorated into fighting each other. These were sister kingdoms, with a similar language and historical memory, which according to biblical historiography split for economic-cultural reasons precisely after the establishment of the kingdom and reaching its peak strength. Is this possible today as well? Can the State of Israel split into two sister states - but different?

Jews have a very poor historical record when it comes to civil wars. Today, the mutual hatred between northwestern Israel and southeastern Israel is growing, to the point of accusations of treason and a strong sense of alienation on both sides, and the trend of this historical process is quite clear in the perspective of several decades: the split in "the people" (the western part no longer identifies with this term) is deepening. If not for the trauma of the Holocaust - voices calling for dismantling the package would have been heard long ago from both sides. For demographic reasons, northwestern Israel has lost the ability to shape its life, and it is captive to southeastern Israel. When we see the success of professional inciters in leading the country precisely because of fanning the flames between populations, it is possible that a voluntary separation by agreement between the sides - a beautiful divorce - will prevent a civil war. The conflict between the parts of Israel must be nipped in the bud, before it slides into violent dimensions (yes, there was also Rabin's assassination. How will Israel react to another political assassination?).

The separation will lead to quite a few dividends for both sides. Northwestern Israel will get rid of the burden of occupation and smoothly enter the family of nations, and will also get rid of the economic burden of subsidizing its poorer neighbor, while southeastern Israel will get rid of the burden of Western culture foreign to it and will be able to run a true Jewish state - a two-thousand-year-old aspiration. Its more Eastern mentality might allow it a different kind of relationship with the Arabs, possibly even for the better. Of course, the separation could include some kind of co-federation and military alliance, and it can be partial (for example, maintaining a joint army and common market). In any case, the high culture of the two populations is already almost completely separate today - and if literature knows how to predict processes, then the separation between Jews will happen long before the separation from the Arabs.

Alternative Current Affairs


text:
The Degeneration of the Nation

Thursday: Political Dreams

The Neurological State | Fighting Current Affairs Through Philosophy | The Philosophical State | The Administrator is a Secretary, and the Teacher is Above Him | The Intelligence State | The Monopoly on the Database as a Monopoly on Violence | Turning the State into a Learning Algorithm - and the Law into Code for Humans | Countless Small Learning Cycles are Preferable to One Large Cycle | The Ultimate Goal of the State - A Cultural Golden Age

By: The State Visionary

I have a dream that the state will have a dream - that the state will be a brain (Source)

* The neurological state is a state organized around learning - the learning state. Instead of democracy and elections, which are a primitive type of learning with a huge feedback loop, it has continuous learning, based on organizing the state like a brain. And the deeper the understanding of the brain's fine details - the better state we can create - in the big picture. The Platonic parable of large and small letters - reversed. Why the brain? A natural learning mechanism, much more efficient than evolution, more robust than an artificial algorithm, and with spiritual content on a higher plane. The soul of the state is culture, and the spirit is literature - but the state is gray matter. And gray matter needs a good learning algorithm.

* Current affairs are the scourge of humanity, having evolved from a nuisance to a genuinely dangerous disease. One way to cure the disease is to kill the patient - the state or democracy. For example, create a society where the institution of the state descends from its greatness, in favor of its more vital competitor - the institution of the corporation. A second option to treat the epidemic is to stop its spread, and treat current affairs sites like porn sites, so they lose legitimacy and revenue. This is a cultural treatment that must mark current affairs as something disgraceful, which caused Nazism, for instance. In any case, no field is further from current affairs than philosophy, and it is the [Translator's note: "Sitra Achra", a Kabbalistic term meaning "the other side" or "the evil side"] for it. Therefore, it also works in reverse. That is, the state's way of fighting harmful current affairs is as old as the fight against demagoguery in Athens - through philosophy. A state that desires life, that wants to remain a democracy, must turn philosophy into its great educational project, in order to raise the level of thinking of its citizens. Philosophy should be studied in kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and university as a mandatory subject. Exactly as religion works in its educational institutions. Philosophy is the religion of the state, and without it, the public sphere will sink to self-destruction. And just as religious priests need to be well-versed in religion, so every official needs to demonstrate proficiency in a philosophy test, according to their seniority. To be an elected official, you need a degree in philosophy, and to be a minister you need a master's degree, and to be a prime minister or authority - a doctorate. This will be a combination of the Chinese imperial examination system with Plato's state, and will raise the level of elected officials wonderfully. Even the Chief of General Staff needs a doctorate in philosophy. This will be the philosophical state.

* The administrator is a secretary, who is below the person responsible for learning who is a data analyst. The exercise of power - below the learning of power. The teacher becomes the most prestigious profession in society, every organization has a teacher. Control is teaching. Work is learning. The worker is a student. The prime minister is the teacher of the state. And the ministers - principals. Every ministry is a school. The goal of the government is to learn. The teacher not only teaches - he is the chief learner. In fact, the teacher should be called: a sage [Translator's note: "Talmid Chacham" in Hebrew, literally "wise student", a term traditionally used for Torah scholars].

* The conscious in the brain - the government. The press - intelligence, these are the senses, but not just the senses, but all hidden and unconscious processing of information. What causes consciousness versus other brain activity - story versus data. In the state of the future, a huge medical database, and databases in every field. The state is a big data repository. The main state governmental power is protection and breach of privacy - this is the exercise of violence in the information age, the violence of information, and the monopoly on violence is the monopoly on access to all information. That is, it's an intelligence state. Security is solving crimes through infinite, all-encompassing information. A new dichotomous definition: The state is the things in which centralization is preferable (for example, the military and the use of force is a monopoly) - and the economy is the rest. But even as a database, the state is only the protection of privacy and the invasion of privacy - that is, what is better centralized, the gatekeeper - and not the ways of using the database. It is the database itself, the minimum needed. Only learning algorithms have access to private details and databases, not any person.

* The abstraction and revelation of all secrets of someone, or of an organization - is the harshest sanction of the state in the information age. More than prison or bankruptcy, which are outdated sanctions. Therefore, one can imagine a terror movement of exposure, which reveals all the secrets of its targets, including sexual ones (for example, a random innocent ordinary citizen who becomes a victim). Subsequently, one can also imagine a war of exposure: revealing all the secrets of the citizens of a rival state and of all commercial organizations in it. Hacking all their computers, recording their conversations, photographing their intimate moments - and publishing everything online. Exposure as punishment should deter the individual, and as a strategy against terrorism, it can deter a group that is not a state (as is common with terrorists).

* A contract needs to become code in special programming languages that lawyers will know and will be applied to the real world (for example, a computerized condition can become a condition in the real world). As these legal programming languages become more sophisticated and detailed, they can become more and more complete and powerful, until they become the language in which the state and its laws are written. The state - as software. The legal system - as procedural code, some of whose variables and functions can be human, until it becomes code that operates on humans. In other words, the idea of the computer will take over humans not from within, but from outside, from within society. In terms of efficiency and fairness and immunity from corruption, there is an advantage to a formula over the law today, and the science of law will become part of computer science - normative computer science.

* The state will be more and more measurable, with metrics that will measure the results of laws. The very fact that you need to think about what you want to measure as the success of a law - will make you think about its purpose. And today, just as scientists research happiness etc., it's possible to measure very qualitative things as well. Therefore, a law will not only be normative, but will also contain a teleological descriptive goal that will be formulated as a metric, and it will be possible to determine if it is effective and how much, and change it accordingly. The smaller the change cycles are, that is, shorter in time and scope - in feedback loops of: legislation, measurement, data analysis and formulation of a new law - the more optimal and adaptive the state will be. This, instead of the cycle today, which takes years between formulating a law until understanding that it doesn't work until new formulation, mainly because there is no metric. True, there can be disagreement about the metric, but in most things we actually do agree and know what we want to achieve and don't know how. In addition, one can imagine a metric that is a function of several variables as a political compromise. Finally, the metric is also influenced by the data, and once data is collected, we can understand what is effective to measure and what is worthy as a metric, or find points of maximum efficiency that arise by themselves from the data. In the future, today's law will seem blind, because it didn't look at its results. All this is a result of morality, especially in its Kantian version, which is as sublime as it is opaque and stupid (traits that go together).

* The purpose of the state is immortalization. Not to manage the present, but to be remembered in the future. A state is measured by the timeless literature written in it, and eternal art created in it. A state without culture is not a human - but a beast. Therefore, there needs to be a whole field in political science that empirically examines what encourages the creation of great culture, and tries to produce the conditions for it. Every other element in the state's activity is a means to this end, and the modern state is the most grotesque and enormous example of forgetting the goal and focusing on the means. The empty, formal state - is a disaster. Banality is evil itself. Lack of freedom is not bad in itself, but because it doesn't allow writing. But a state that allows writing but doesn't allow thinking - is even worse than a state that doesn't allow writing, because writing without thinking is to ensure that the future will forget you. Producing mountains of garbage is the thing that makes even gold forgotten within it. The ultimate state - a golden age.

Philosophy of the Future

domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Thursday: Political 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-learning78" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/havedream.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

Thursday: Political Dreams

The Neurological State | Fighting Current Affairs Through Philosophy | The Philosophical State | The Administrator is a Secretary, and the Teacher is Above Him | The Intelligence State | The Monopoly on the Database as a Monopoly on Violence | Turning the State into a Learning Algorithm - and the Law into Code for Humans | Countless Small Learning Cycles are Preferable to One Large Cycle | The Ultimate Goal of the State - A Cultural Golden Age

By: The State Visionary

I have a dream that the state will have a dream - that the state will be a brain  (Source)

The neurological state is a state organized around learning - the learning state. Instead of democracy and elections, which are a primitive type of learning with a huge feedback loop, it has continuous learning, based on organizing the state like a brain. And the deeper the understanding of the brain's fine details - the better state we can create - in the big picture. The Platonic parable of large and small letters - reversed. Why the brain? A natural learning mechanism, much more efficient than evolution, more robust than an artificial algorithm, and with spiritual content on a higher plane. The soul of the state is culture, and the spirit is literature - but the state is gray matter. And gray matter needs a good learning algorithm.

Current affairs are the scourge of humanity, having evolved from a nuisance to a genuinely dangerous disease. One way to cure the disease is to kill the patient - the state or democracy. For example, create a society where the institution of the state descends from its greatness, in favor of its more vital competitor - the institution of the corporation. A second option to treat the epidemic is to stop its spread, and treat current affairs sites like porn sites, so they lose legitimacy and revenue. This is a cultural treatment that must mark current affairs as something disgraceful, which caused Nazism, for instance. In any case, no field is further from current affairs than philosophy, and it is the [Translator's note: "Sitra Achra", a Kabbalistic term meaning "the other side" or "the evil side"] for it. Therefore, it also works in reverse. That is, the state's way of fighting harmful current affairs is as old as the fight against demagoguery in Athens - through philosophy. A state that desires life, that wants to remain a democracy, must turn philosophy into its great educational project, in order to raise the level of thinking of its citizens. Philosophy should be studied in kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and university as a mandatory subject. Exactly as religion works in its educational institutions. Philosophy is the religion of the state, and without it, the public sphere will sink to self-destruction. And just as religious priests need to be well-versed in religion, so every official needs to demonstrate proficiency in a philosophy test, according to their seniority. To be an elected official, you need a degree in philosophy, and to be a minister you need a master's degree, and to be a prime minister or authority - a doctorate. This will be a combination of the Chinese imperial examination system with Plato's state, and will raise the level of elected officials wonderfully. Even the Chief of General Staff needs a doctorate in philosophy. This will be the philosophical state.

The administrator is a secretary, who is below the person responsible for learning who is a data analyst. The exercise of power - below the learning of power. The teacher becomes the most prestigious profession in society, every organization has a teacher. Control is teaching. Work is learning. The worker is a student. The prime minister is the teacher of the state. And the ministers - principals. Every ministry is a school. The goal of the government is to learn. The teacher not only teaches - he is the chief learner. In fact, the teacher should be called: a sage [Translator's note: "Talmid Chacham" in Hebrew, literally "wise student", a term traditionally used for Torah scholars].

The conscious in the brain - the government. The press - intelligence, these are the senses, but not just the senses, but all hidden and unconscious processing of information. What causes consciousness versus other brain activity - story versus data. In the state of the future, a huge medical database, and databases in every field. The state is a big data repository. The main state governmental power is protection and breach of privacy - this is the exercise of violence in the information age, the violence of information, and the monopoly on violence is the monopoly on access to all information. That is, it's an intelligence state. Security is solving crimes through infinite, all-encompassing information. A new dichotomous definition: The state is the things in which centralization is preferable (for example, the military and the use of force is a monopoly) - and the economy is the rest. But even as a database, the state is only the protection of privacy and the invasion of privacy - that is, what is better centralized, the gatekeeper - and not the ways of using the database. It is the database itself, the minimum needed. Only learning algorithms have access to private details and databases, not any person.

The abstraction and revelation of all secrets of someone, or of an organization - is the harshest sanction of the state in the information age. More than prison or bankruptcy, which are outdated sanctions. Therefore, one can imagine a terror movement of exposure, which reveals all the secrets of its targets, including sexual ones (for example, a random innocent ordinary citizen who becomes a victim). Subsequently, one can also imagine a war of exposure: revealing all the secrets of the citizens of a rival state and of all commercial organizations in it. Hacking all their computers, recording their conversations, photographing their intimate moments - and publishing everything online. Exposure as punishment should deter the individual, and as a strategy against terrorism, it can deter a group that is not a state (as is common with terrorists).

A contract needs to become code in special programming languages that lawyers will know and will be applied to the real world (for example, a computerized condition can become a condition in the real world). As these legal programming languages become more sophisticated and detailed, they can become more and more complete and powerful, until they become the language in which the state and its laws are written. The state - as software. The legal system - as procedural code, some of whose variables and functions can be human, until it becomes code that operates on humans. In other words, the idea of the computer will take over humans not from within, but from outside, from within society. In terms of efficiency and fairness and immunity from corruption, there is an advantage to a formula over the law today, and the science of law will become part of computer science - normative computer science.

The state will be more and more measurable, with metrics that will measure the results of laws. The very fact that you need to think about what you want to measure as the success of a law - will make you think about its purpose. And today, just as scientists research happiness etc., it's possible to measure very qualitative things as well. Therefore, a law will not only be normative, but will also contain a teleological descriptive goal that will be formulated as a metric, and it will be possible to determine if it is effective and how much, and change it accordingly. The smaller the change cycles are, that is, shorter in time and scope - in feedback loops of: legislation, measurement, data analysis and formulation of a new law - the more optimal and adaptive the state will be. This, instead of the cycle today, which takes years between formulating a law until understanding that it doesn't work until new formulation, mainly because there is no metric. True, there can be disagreement about the metric, but in most things we actually do agree and know what we want to achieve and don't know how. In addition, one can imagine a metric that is a function of several variables as a political compromise. Finally, the metric is also influenced by the data, and once data is collected, we can understand what is effective to measure and what is worthy as a metric, or find points of maximum efficiency that arise by themselves from the data. In the future, today's law will seem blind, because it didn't look at its results. All this is a result of morality, especially in its Kantian version, which is as sublime as it is opaque and stupid (traits that go together).

The purpose of the state is immortalization. Not to manage the present, but to be remembered in the future. A state is measured by the timeless literature written in it, and eternal art created in it. A state without culture is not a human - but a beast. Therefore, there needs to be a whole field in political science that empirically examines what encourages the creation of great culture, and tries to produce the conditions for it. Every other element in the state's activity is a means to this end, and the modern state is the most grotesque and enormous example of forgetting the goal and focusing on the means. The empty, formal state - is a disaster. Banality is evil itself. Lack of freedom is not bad in itself, but because it doesn't allow writing. But a state that allows writing but doesn't allow thinking - is even worse than a state that doesn't allow writing, because writing without thinking is to ensure that the future will forget you. Producing mountains of garbage is the thing that makes even gold forgotten within it. The ultimate state - a golden age.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Tragedy of Philosophy - 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-learning59" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/rembrandtphilosopher.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 Tragedy of Philosophy

There can be two main aesthetic tastes in the form of philosophical writing: philosophy that reveals its origin and thought process and follows the initial development of ideas, and philosophy that presents ideas in their most sophisticated, aesthetic, and complete form - and evokes astonishment. The second taste teaches less about how to do philosophy, and it contradicts the principles of learning philosophy, but it teaches the philosophy itself better, and evokes a sense of sublimity for philosophy and the height of its ideas - because it throws away the ladder. But there is also a third and tragic form of philosophical writing: when philosophical work does not reach completion, and evokes sorrow for the spiritual loss, but also opens a door for continuation

By: A Tasteless Attempt

The formal confusion between a linear description of the development of ideas and their reasoning produces the illusion of philosophical proof - instead of philosophical learning (Source)

Ancient Japanese painting copied everything from the Chinese, but did it more beautifully. The Koreans, on the other hand, are just a shade of Chinese culture, because they are not an island, and therefore there remains a continuum of influence rather than something distinct - an analog rather than digital difference. An island, like Japan, creates a break in the graph of influence. After all, the most important thing on a world map, the zero or one, the most important first bit - is it sea or land. A phase transition between liquid and solid.

But Japanese painting is more important, which means we don't care who was first, but who did it best. That's how it is in culture too - the claim that he took it from someone else is not important, compared to the claim that someone did it better. We are used to someone who copied and did it less well and more popularly, like in music, or in Christianity compared to Judaism. Christianity simply stripped down the most general pattern of a biblical hero and turned it into the life story of Jesus - the lowest common denominator of the Bible, and therefore more abstract, and sometimes more extreme, in a simplistic way, like the Son of God.

From a literary perspective, there is a process here of taking an entire literature as examples, abstracting the most general pattern through deep learning - and creating something similar. The Kabbalah did this too, but more to rabbinic literature. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is a general Tannaic hero. They did this to the commandments too, with "Love your neighbor as yourself". And who did this to Greek culture? Who is the general Greek hero? Virgil tried to do this. And who is the general Shakespearean hero? The Russian classics with the Russian soul is also a kind of summative move of the drama.

In other words, it's not important to be the first, but the first has the advantage that he can easily do it best, and choose the most fruitful path in the field because no one has taken it. It's relatively easy for him to spread out the basic vectors of the space, and after him any other combination will not easily spread more dimensions. In the long run, there can be two aesthetic tastes in understanding and describing history (including the history of technology or science or painting, etc.): who led to what, or what is the most perfect and complete expression of something. Alternatively: how did the phenomenon begin (or end, meaning something else began), versus how is the peak of the phenomenon. The first allows understanding, and learning how to do new things, new directions, and the second leads to fascination and lack of understanding of how such a thing was done at all, like the pyramids or the Bible or the Odyssey.

That is, in the second taste, it looks in terms of complexity like NP, not P - we know how to judge that it's amazing but not how to do it. And the two types of complexity are the real reason there are two tastes in writing history, which should be called: the scientific taste form (the first) and the artistic taste form (the second). In different fields, it is more common to write in one form or the other, for example in painting it is mainly customary to look at masterpieces, and in science there is importance to originality. The scientific form is the taste that is interested in learning from the beginnings, and the artistic form is the taste that is interested in getting inspiration and learning from the most complete examples.

For example, the textbook, the university study material for the theory of relativity, the most complete thing and the most complete understanding of the theory (and especially in mathematics this is so), as opposed to the first articles that were written, say what Einstein or Fourier wrote. Because the question in the end is what teaches more. No one looks at a painting by a bad painter to learn how to paint, or at a half-painted and incomplete painting. In mathematics, they teach the most beautiful thing there is, and also in painting and also in physics. They don't teach the first proof, the stammering one, with holes and inaccuracies, and with concepts that were defined differently.

Blurring the origin creates a sense of divinity, as opposed to historicity that creates a sense of humanity. That is, there is a secular taste and there is a religious taste, two ways of describing the phenomenon (its beginning and moment of peak). And the war of secularism on the Bible in trying to find its origins, or the war of the twentieth century on art - this is the secularization of art, which is a Christian genre. And so is the war in literature, from within literature, in an attempt to deconstruct its origins. That's why Japan evokes admiration, and China doesn't. Despite China being the source. That's why art needs to present the moment of peak or just before it. Or just after it. And not the beginning of the thing.

The problem with Japan today is the feeling that it's past its peak. And this is an even more dubious artistic taste - decadence, presenting the corruption of the thing, or the beginning of corruption - which is the tragic - or the end of corruption - which is the comic. This is a form of presenting the end of the thing, how it disappears, and what causes things to disappear. For example, the fall of the Roman Empire. Unlike the fall of Greece which was not presented as a tragedy, but as the peak moment of culture, as fascination. Were there periods of decadence in Judaism? It's not clear. Because fewer written things were preserved from them, and what was preserved is the peak of what was written. And also because this culture doesn't perceive itself in a form of decadence. Maybe once, before the destruction, as sin, but because in the end punishment comes it's not the same structure, because the meaning is not lost to the culture.

After the destruction there is no longer a cyclical perception (the Crusades and pogroms are not punishment for our sins we were warned about, but anti-Jewish wickedness, the act of Satan and not the act of God). Instead, there is indeed a perception of deterioration, but in the end there is a Messiah, which does not allow decadence, at the end of which there is something else and real disintegration. That is, what's important is the genre in which a culture thinks about itself, like this type of investigation, which is definitely in the scientific taste, meaning it seeks the beginning of thought and not the purpose of thought, meaning not its complete peak and end. And therefore it is fragmentary and not a display of purpose.

Although it may also be argued that it is intellectual decadence. And then it fails. That is, it seeks the questions that it finds interesting to ask and that it thinks are not being asked. And so the question is why in music we are very sorry about Mozart and Schubert who died early, while we are less sorry about Raphael, and in mathematics we are very sorry about Galois, while we are less sorry about Van Gogh, or Lennon, or Baudelaire. That is, there are people whose beginnings we miss, and there are people whose peak we miss, and therefore what we have is the peak. And there are also those whose decadence we miss, and this we will never know, whether it would have started and when.

But sometimes it's sad about a peak that didn't reach as high as it could have, and sometimes about beginnings that could have still come out. Here now there is a direction in science where the computer of genes and the computer of the brain are mixing in their computational abilities, and maybe the brain also uses the genome to compute, and even in a digital way. And it's interesting if there's no connection to the third computer of the body which is the immune system, these are the three computers known in the body. And here we always thought there were dichotomies between the systems and now there can be other connections between body and soul and between heredity and culture. And actually why think that there won't be exploitation of this system, after all why wouldn't evolution exploit other existing computers and use them for computation. But what if it's not true? If it turns out in the end that there's a deep reason - or worse, a random one - for the dichotomy? Who mourns directions that could have been interesting and turned out to be incorrect in science, or in evolution? Who checks how an alternative universe would have looked?

We can look for a fossil of the beginning of a species, or of its peak development, or be interested precisely in its extinction, which is a kind of combination of the scientific taste (and therefore the necessary, the causal) and the artistic taste (peak sophistication - aesthetics) that this combination is the tragic. Therefore, we don't see tragedy in what never really started, we don't mourn it. On the other hand, the closer the destruction was to the peak of sophistication (like in the Holocaust, which was in the middle of the Jewish cultural golden age in Europe) then both tastes of description are stronger - and the tragedy is greater. The greatest tragedy is ending exactly at the peak of life and vitality and potential, and not in the death of a baby, or an old person. 20 is the most terrible age to die at. Tragedy.

Therefore, the corruption of Japan is not a tragedy but old age, and the corruption of the USA at its peak - a tragedy. And certainly that of Europe in the world wars. At the beginning of corruption, when it's close to the peak, then it's most regrettable, but if the corruption is gradual, then by its end we get used to it and it's already ridiculous. Therefore, sudden or faster death is more tragic than slow death. If there could be a creature in which the brain computer is connected to the gene computer - it could, for example, prevent cancer and diseases - and it would be a less tragic creature. Because tragedy stems from the gap between the brain and the body, between spirit and matter, and between aesthetic taste and scientific taste. Since there is a dichotomy between the biological learning of the body and intellectual learning - man is a creature with tragic potential. The brain can completely understand that the body is not okay, and what's not okay with cancer, but still has no direct access to its body and systems to stop the cancer that's killing it. This gap between the stupidity and banality of the bacterium or cancer that kills and the sophistication and awareness of the creature that dies - is tragic.

Philosophy of the Future


domain: literature

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Spiritual Death - 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-life70" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/douleur.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

Spiritual Death

I start calculating the number of nights until I die, and the number of dreams I have left. What should I waste them on? I must penetrate into something deep, so that I'll at least be one of those writers who got something out of their illness, and didn't remain spiritually virginal

By: Digging His Own Grave

When revelation is suicide  (Source)

I dreamed I fell ill. And it's clear to me that I'll either rise from this a new man, or not rise at all. And the doctors come to my bedside, from all departments, because it's a complex case that could die, and therefore very interesting, because only from the outside does it look like a uniform black circle without shades, but under a microscope it's truly frightening what's inside. And the thing that scares me most is that the doctors themselves are afraid. And there's a body doctor (who's really like a veterinarian), and above him a mind doctor, and above him a spirit doctor, and above him a soul doctor, and a living soul doctor and above them all the unit manager. And I start calculating the number of nights until I die, and the number of dreams I have left. What should I waste them on? I must penetrate into something deep, so that I'll at least be one of those writers who got something out of their illness, and didn't remain spiritually virginal. Because dying - I haven't cared about that for years. Only when I had people who loved me - did I fear death. For their sake. Especially the parents, after all, a child's death is harder for them than for him. And when they died - they released me from life.

After all, my children don't love me (I have no illusions) and for my wife it will only do her good to be a widow instead of a divorcee. It's more respectable in society. I even think I saw a smile on her face. The only one who loves is the daughter with disabilities, but she really doesn't know if I'm alive or dead, and maybe doesn't even know if she's alive or dead. And it's impossible to explain to her either. One day I'll simply disappear for her, like a cat whose owner vanishes. Slowly she'll notice I'm not there, until she gradually forgets I ever existed. In short - the only reason to live is the dreams, and also not to disappoint the unit manager. I really feel bad for them, how much they're trying to keep me somehow tied to matter, so I won't float away to the skies one night like a balloon through a dream.

Therefore, there must be another reason, and I mustn't waste time, because soon the pains will come. And I know I have no tolerance for pain at all. And I'll start crying that I don't want to live - as happens to me even when I have the flu, and my wife laughs at me, and leaves me to die in bed. Because at least now I have a reason not to get out of bed. After all, it's not her fault. As she says: Your whole life is inside the computer, and she doesn't know how right she is. And she keeps asking what I'm hiding from her. Once she even cried: If only you were watching porn, like a man. With an evil inclination. Instead of all these words you write, and who knows what he's writing. Who knows what he's even writing about you. So that's her side, it must be said. And the children whose father is considered an idiot, who doesn't know how to sit and study. No one is to blame, you must let go. All this the mind doctor tells me. And he continues: And if your veterinarian, Mr. Cat, decides that the body is leaving the soul, then at least let it be a beautiful divorce. Don't be one of those couples who separate in a world war. And I say to him: Sir, it's okay. I didn't intend to fight at all. Not over this fat, round, sick, rotting and blackening body, disgusting. I leave the battles to the beautiful-haired and titled ones. I'm a very spiritually spoiled cat, and unable to live the diseased bodily life that the illness demands. God will defeat me easily. They tell me to fight fight fight, but I just want to dream dream dream. And the doctor claps his hands: After they failed to heal the body, I also fail to heal the mind. I'm sending you to the spirit doctor.

And then comes the spirit doctor, and it only gets harder. Because there are spiritual problems in the world, in the writing itself. And he says: Your big mistake, which is made up of thousands of small mistakes (one at the end of each paragraph), like an elephant made of mice - is that you didn't write a novel. And didn't conduct a romance. And I say: I was capable of committing to a novel? In a novel you need to seduce the other side, of the female reader, to manage a relationship with her, to throw dishes and take out the trash, all the things I don't know how to do. And he says: You're a one-night stand! No wonder you only have casual readers, who move on. And this is part of the disease of this era, which you too have caught. And I say: No, I actually didn't move on, but continued to write countless letters to my unrequited love. That's exactly what you don't understand in the dream. It's not a real relationship, there's no contact. It's a long-distance relationship. This is exactly the relationship of this era - through the computer. You're not cruel enough to me: The problem isn't that I didn't love, but simply that I wasn't loved. The problem is the one-sidedness, not the commitment. And the doctor says: I didn't understand what happens in the book. The plot! And I say: From the beginning they cut out all the structure of the book for me, and about half the content, even in the books that came out - it just went through a blender, I myself didn't understand what was happening there. Maybe if a book of hundreds of pages had really come out - it would have elicited a different attitude, a different experience. We'll never know now. Especially if the books were read according to their structural instructions (throughout the cycle of the year, throughout the life cycle, throughout a whole white night...). I myself love dense and convoluted texts, as in our people's tradition, and hate inflated and strong novels like gentiles. So write them? And the doctor says: Who knows what would have come out if you had written a novel once - maybe a masterpiece! And I say: I'll tell you why I didn't write a novel. Because you can't write a novel for yourself. Only for a reader. And I didn't have a reader. I wrote for myself. This is of course a huge problem. But it's also reality. It's hard to fake, and a novel is always always fake, an illusion of reality, and in a dream the illusion is reality. Fantasy is the truth. And the doctor says: I can't save someone who doesn't want to be cured, for that you need a different kind of treatment. I'm giving you an urgent referral to the soul doctor.

And the soul doctor crawls to my bed at night and says: You're Jewish, right? And I say: Even that's not clear to me anymore. I don't know if I'm Jewish. But I'm in exile. That's perhaps the trendy, up-to-date identity. Someone who's not in place, and therefore tells himself he's not in time, and belongs to the distant past and the distant future. I was a symbol that doesn't exist on the keyboard. And the doctor says: But there's a Jewish soul. And therefore it can't be that you didn't try to do something big. And I say: True, I tried. Succeeding is something else entirely. Meaning something that even I can't know. Maybe even the last to know. And that's the cruelty. In my lifetime I won't know. Although sometimes - it seemed to me that I had written a masterpiece, in "The Book of Life". Although it will probably be considered my worst book, in the future. But for me it was the great book about the Holocaust. The reckoning on it in the upper worlds. A reformulation of Judaism after Auschwitz. And he says: You've completely lost control over the course of events. And I say: There's nothing to be done, as a dreamer, I always lost control. I never had control. It exposes me much more. With many writers, it's like hearing them. For me it's really entering into the brain, it's more intimate than sex, and therefore I also had to protect myself, to hide. And therefore I also so despised the body, realism. I didn't do physical activity. I became a sickly lazy fat cat. But my head always remained flying. I was a cat with a shtreimel [Translator's note: fur hat worn by some Hasidic Jews]. And the doctor says: Are you already eulogizing yourself? Leave something for the rabbis. And I say: The rabbis won't understand anything. The secular didn't understand anything. It didn't help me that I wrote for these, and it didn't help when I wrote for those. Because in the end, I remained one who writes for a cat with a shtreimel. And the doctor is already marking: referral form to the living soul doctor.

And the spiritual veterinarian comes to me: So what drives you from within? Is it that you're a cat? Is it that you're ultra-Orthodox? Is it that you're a circle? Is it that you're Jewish? Is it that you're black? Actually, each of these levels together are NRN ChY [Translator's note: acronym for Nefesh (soul), Ruach (spirit), Neshama (higher soul), Chaya (living essence)]. And I say: For me it's already NRN MT [Translator's note: wordplay replacing ChY (living) with MT (dead)]. Because instead of Chaya I have Meta [dead], and instead of Yechida [unity] I have Torah. I didn't go to the army. I wanted to be part of the Torah. But the Torah vomited me out. Because I was too low, too clownish, too clever, too evasive, too esoteric, too dark, because I didn't write clearly enough what I wanted, because I was captive in my own discourse, which I deluded myself would be the continuation of the messianic-kabbalistic-futuristic discourse, and because I was afraid to write things without garments, because I recoiled from religious kitsch, which is the most difficult problem of holiness - kitsch. Kitsch is the reason for secularization, and therefore from secularization one can actually emerge - and purify God. The hope of Israel, in which the Lord immerses. And the veterinarian says: My son, you don't believe in spirit. The spirit can still reveal you. And I say: It's possible that the work of deciphering my life's work is possible, but who will take it upon themselves, and whoever takes it - will discover what they don't want to discover. The religiosity. The fussiness. The religiousness. The mysticism. The visions. The prophecies. The dreams. And worst of all - the seriousness. That I didn't laugh. Only you laughed. And that future researcher will be amazed to discover what was hidden there like a mummified corpse - the dead seriousness. Yes, sorry for the disappointment.

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>How I Became a Bibi Admirer - 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-life41" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bibipipi.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

How I Became a Bibi Admirer

Please, Lord, my God and God of my fathers, open Facebook for us at the time of Facebook's closing, for how will I know now what people think about Bibi? Save us, how will they now be able to read the dreams that have all disappeared within Facebook's innards? Please do not hide Your ear, why close the only communication channel with the world, especially for me?

By: Making a Safe Dream

Supersymmetry - The opposite of Bibi is also Bibi, and therefore there is no opposition (Source)

I dreamed that Facebook closed my Facebook account and I was left outside, with no one to talk to. And I fled from the computer to the synagogue, opened the prayer book, and prayed to God to bring back my Facebook: Please, Lord, my God and God of my fathers, open Facebook for us at the time of Facebook's closing, for how will I know now what people think about Bibi? Save us, how will they now be able to read the dreams that have all disappeared within Facebook's innards? Please do not hide Your ear, why close the only communication channel with the world, especially for me? But God, who was already tired of all the pleas and prayers about Facebook, directs the worshippers straight to the Facebook angel - an angel responsible only for Facebook.

And the weary angel says: You too? How can all of you complain that your Facebook was closed - when Facebook is forbidden altogether. It's like someone complaining that their pork got burned while frying. And I plead: But it's a matter of life and death! My soul is buried inside Facebook, which suddenly collapsed on it. First, we must inspect the stones, then inspect what's inside. Why me of all people? And the angel mimics me: Why me of all people? What about my soul? Even the angel responsible for complaints about Bibi doesn't suffer like this. And I'm surprised: They appointed a special angel just for Bibi? And he snorts: You'd be surprised! And I say: Everyone is only interested in Bibi all day, even though in a hundred years no one will remember who he was. And no one is interested in me, even though maybe in a hundred years they'll remember me instead. And then there will be a footnote to explain who Bibi was, and maybe also what Facebook was. How did Bibi-consciousness take over the world, and only I don't understand what's interesting about it? And in the face of the Facebook angel, a spark of hope ignites: So you actually want me to refer you to the Bibi angel? And I say: You know what, go ahead. And he smiles a wide smile, and gives me a referral with his motto at the bottom: Facebook Angel - Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life was spared (Genesis 32). And at the top of the referral it says: Nathaniel - Netanyahu's angel, the angel who gives you more.

And Bibi's angel beams with happiness: It's because you're not annoying enough! The leftists are Bibi's best partners. If they didn't pay attention to him, he would disappear - exactly as Zen teaching instructs - but as Jews, nothing is further from them than Zen consciousness. The entire existence of Bibi-consciousness is because they participate in it, and this consciousness is actually the only thing they have in common with the right, and therefore Bibi is the cornerstone. It's impossible without him. And I ask: But I thought that the most annoying person is the least popular? And he says: That's a common mistake. What's important in contemporary democracy, or on Facebook, or in the current era in general, is not who is most loved, but who gets the most attention. In network communication, what matters is not who gets the most likes (mistake!) but who creates the most discourse, who's the most viral. This is an insight you haven't internalized, which is the essence of your era: on the network, it's not the vertices that determine - but the connections. And what creates more discourse and spreads to others than annoyance? You need to be a Hasidic saint or a Zen monk not to get annoyed when someone yells at you, for a conflict one side is enough. And since Bibi is the most annoying person in the country, he's the prime minister. Same thing in the USA. Even those who love Bibi do so to annoy the leftists. Or the gentiles. Or their mother-in-law. In fact, he even annoys his wife, and that's why she loves him so much. There are also literary figures who caught on to this trick, like Houellebecq and Balak son of Zippor [Translator's note: Reference to Israeli author Yishai Sarid]. You need to be the most annoying, and then people will pay attention to you, and then they'll read you on Facebook.

And I'm surprised: I'm not annoying enough? I tried to annoy as much as I could, like Balak son of Zippor wanted. And the angel smiles, pleased with himself up to the heavens: You need to work on your inner core, to identify with Bibi. You must feel that someone has wronged you - for example, Facebook! For example, Balak son of Zippor! For example, "Haaretz" [Translator's note: Israeli newspaper]! For example, the literary world or the leftist elite! - and live the insult and defiance. You can't be annoying as a joke. To truly annoy - you need to annoy seriously. What Balak son of Zippor forgot, you haven't learned yet. The need to annoy is not his limitation - it's your limitation. Because the urge to annoy and be annoyed is deeply psychological, a spiritual need of the Jewish soul ever since we annoyed God in the desert and the gentiles in exile (for exactly the same reason!), while the desire to laugh is shallow and intellectual. And since Jews love annoyance and nerves - the one who divides them the most is the true center. Around him they revolve. If you just manage to annoy enough and adopt toxic circularity - the black circle will become the black hole around which the world revolves, along with the entire galaxy. And then I'll be your guardian angel.

And I ask: But who will be annoyed by me? Annoyingness only strengthens the strong, and allows only the well-known annoyers to continue accumulating annoyance capital, and impoverish everyone else of any attention. I'm so obscure that even if I'm annoying, there's nothing to be annoyed about. And the angel flaps his wings with excitement and circles around my soul: This is the classic circular problem of the annoyer and the chicken, which is no longer relevant today when people get annoyed by people they don't even know. The social network has created a new era in annoyer-annoyed relations, of disconnecting the annoyer from the annoyed, and therefore nerves spread to enormous interpersonal distances, on a national scale, even international. The more people got annoyed on Facebook - the more it just grew and strengthened and became a global empire of negative emotion and circle exclusion. Putin - annoying. Trump - annoying. Whoever isn't annoying enough - is ousted. Why did Assad survive and Mubarak fall? Because Assad is annoying and Mubarak isn't (just look at their faces). Negative emotion is five times stronger than positive emotion in creating arousal and memory, so for every negative experience in a relationship, you need five positive ones to fix it, it's been proven in research. Therefore, if you annoy the reader, you'll succeed five times more than if you make them laugh. People only think they like to laugh - what they really like is to be annoyed. Otherwise, satire would be at the top of the news pages, while the news would be on the back page. Search deep within yourself: what's annoying about you? What's really, really annoying about you?

And I ask: But isn't laughing at people annoying to them? And the angel laughs: Laughter does exactly the opposite of annoying, it reconciles and destroys people's nerves that they've accumulated with great effort. If you ridicule Bibi-consciousness, the center of being - it's clear that you're the least popular writer on all of Facebook. Bibi is the tribal bonfire, both from the right and the left - and you're peeing on the fire. Are you surprised they threw you out of the newspaper? People love the newspaper because it annoys them. That's why they're addicted to news, that's why they love terrorist attacks, Arabs, and burning issues, that's why they love real positions - because they're more annoying. The Jewish people survived two thousand years of exile only because it was the most annoying people in the world. The Palestinian conflict is an asset for Israel, it's what makes it a superpower, because it annoys the whole world. Otherwise, who would even hear about it. Russia too only returned to being a superpower because it learned to annoy the world again. And now the USA itself is trying the same trick to return to its greatness. And Iran? Same story of course. But you here are unable to learn from one of the most annoying people in the world, which is a rare privilege that has fallen to your lot to live under him. No, no, you disappoint me very much, you're still so far, you've severely neglected the Bibi within you, the one who could have arranged success for you. Almost every Israeli is closer than you to Bibi's great spirit, which sweeps them within it. Something that secular people, who don't believe in the spiritual world and angels, think can be reduced to Machiavellian manipulations and media advisors, and therefore fail every time. In spirit, you fight only with spirit, and the very word manipulation shows how much they don't understand the difference between power and spirit. Because a spirit with its own angel, like me, who distills it into an idea and gives it wings, will defeat any opposing force. It's not a technical matter, as they think of Bibi as a magician technician, instead of as the embodiment of a spiritual - and annoying - idea. Therefore, no advisor, not even an angel, will help you, as long as you don't change from within, and connect to Bibi's soul, and not as a joke, or in a manipulative way. After all, every Israeli has their inner Bibi, without which the external Bibi would evaporate like a dream. And how much can you already annoy when it's just a dream?

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Color of the Eyes - 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-life61" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/hereyes.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 Color of the Eyes

I only have a few months left to see, and I won't finish the book, and I start crying to them that just as I began writing my great book, my masterpiece and magnum opus, I need two more years, and it's happening now and it's not fair. But deep inside, I feel that it is actually fair and I deserve it - I'm eating my heart out over all the time I wasted (and even more over the one who didn't want me)

By: Peeping Through the Cracks

The Color of S's Eyes (Source)

I dreamed that I developed a rare eye problem discovered by some doctor, and that I need to find a professor willing to treat it with an experimental method involving a small black pupil, which I could also help him with - and it would be worthwhile for him with the research. But I can't find anyone, wandering through faculties, they tell me it's very interesting, and they'll think about it, and that it's intriguing and innovative and experimental, but there are very few patients with this condition in the world, and even those aren't discovered, so I don't really believe they're interested. Or that they'll think about it. Then I go for a check-up, with the pupil doctor who hasn't done anything in the meantime, and they discover that the problem is already irreversible and all the yolk of the eye [Translator's note: referring to the iris] which is the middle of the eye has completely mixed, and only the white around it remains, and I'm about to go blind and already see everything blurry (how didn't I notice but look, it's true!). And I only have a few months left to see and I won't finish the book, and I start crying to them that just as I began writing my great book, my masterpiece and magnum opus, and I need two more years to see, and it's happening now and it's not fair. But deep inside, I feel that it is actually fair and I deserve it - I'm eating my heart out over all the time I wasted (and even more over the one who didn't want me) instead of starting the one thing that was important.

But they're not impressed by the lost book and don't care, and I realize that I won't be able to see even myself in the mirror anymore, I'll only be able to touch, and that I won't even be able to see the girl I'll marry. So in that respect, there's a preference for girls I've already seen, whom I can at least imagine, fantasize about, dream of. And instead of writing, I'm wasting time looking at some beautiful leaf in the sun, and I say how I'm wasting the time I have left to see, instead of writing, and I start to see some girl on the street who seems interested in me, and maybe I'll be with her, and waste time - because maybe (actually probably. Actually certainly) I won't be with her at all - looking at her. And in the end, she sits on a bench and talks to someone, and I try to get her attention, looking at her so she'll look at me, lying very close underneath her on the floor under the bench so she'll notice, and thinking maybe it doesn't make a good impression that I'm like this on the floor of the bench if she sees me, but telling myself that this way she'll know I'm that kind of weird, and that's what there is. No point in hiding. They find out in the end anyway.

And I look at her really closely from below and try to catch her eye with a really penetrating gaze so she'll see me, from between the planks under the bench, and I see that she looks like her, really looks like her, exactly as I like, or as I've gotten used to liking, and feel a bit lucky that I met someone like that, with eyes like that, but she ignores me. And it's really strange that she doesn't see that I'm right underneath her (but maybe it's also lucky that she doesn't see me in such a state lying down and won't want me), and she's busy talking to another guy right above me, and miraculously doesn't see me, even though I'm right there, all of me focused and all my ability deep in her light green eyes - and I understand that they are her eyes. That she is her.

Nightlife


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Confucius of the Future - 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-learning72" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/confucius.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

Confucius of the Future

"The Jewish Confucius" - or "The Proto-Netanyahuite" - are the names given to an anonymous thinker who predated the beginning of the Netanya school of thought, who was perhaps the teacher or initial inspiration of the most important philosopher in Netanya, who later disowned him - when he turned from Eastern thought to Western thought. Very little has been preserved of the Proto-Netanyahuite thought, which remained partly obscure and sealed for a future generation to discover, but some of the teacher's ideas precede those of the student - particularly the philosophy of learning and the future. From the remaining fragments, it appears to have been a kind of mystical group that existed in ancient Netanya around a charismatic teacher - and sex addict. The thought is organized in two condensed collections, one by the teacher and the other by the student, and it was found in the Netanyahuite's home after his suicide, and was apparently his favorite reading material in the bathroom, but he denied any connection to it during his lifetime, and insisted that he had never read it - and was not influenced by it at all

By: The Student of the Future

"I never said that" - attributed to Confucius (source)

Introduction: The Teacher of the Future

The fault line in pre-Netanyahuite thought between the teacher's collection and the student's collection lies in the fact that the teacher's thought revolves around the concept of learning, while the student's thought revolves around the direction of the future, in contrast to its development in Netanyahuite philosophy, where the idea of the future is perceived as a partial and initial idea while the idea of learning is perceived as a complete, deeper and more mature formulation. It seems that the student belonged to a later generation than the teacher, and may have been one of the ideological fathers of the Netanyahuite philosopher. In any case, the earlier formulation of the fragments is much more literary than is customary in the later Netanya school, and certainly with the Netanyahuite himself, who is a master of poor style. They are presented here for the benefit of future researchers of the school - because a school that has no past has no future either. And as emerges from the teacher's will: there is nothing more fitting than to end - at the starting point.

The Ethics Beyond the Rational

The teacher said: Learning is not pleasure, but the root of pleasure is learning. In the world of virtue, pleasure is the root of learning, and therefore there is no pleasure that is not learning. In the world of virtue - everything is sex.

The teacher said to a student who made a mistake: Just as eternal pleasure is not pleasure, there is no eternal learning. Pleasure that is not learning is a mistake from the path - and addiction is a circular path. In the world of virtue, there is error - but no addiction. And here is an error. The student said: So was I right when I made a mistake? The teacher said: If you follow the mistakes but do not arrive at the same place.

The teacher said to a crying woman: The pleasure of sex is the pleasure of learning of sex, of evolution. And pain is the failure of learning. Fixation is the entrance to pain, and love is its home - but it is also the home of learning. The woman said: And what should I do when it hurts? The teacher said: Learn.

The teacher said to the students: Good pain causes learning, when bad pleasure fails to cause it.

A student who did not progress came to the teacher's house. The teacher said: The path is learning, but learning is not a path. It becomes a path like searching in a forest. When the forest is inside the house, it is the safest learning, which is learning that can be failed. The student said: And if I cannot find the trees inside the house? The teacher said: Leave the house.

They asked the teacher: When you say that everything is sex, doesn't this lead to promiscuity? The teacher said: Those who say that not everything is sex are the ones leading to promiscuity. Promiscuity is a mistake in learning - when there is only outside and no inside, then the depth of learning is lost. In the world of virtue - there is no outside. Everything is inside.

A student said: To learn something new, isn't it a greater pleasure than learning something old? But to learn something new from within the old is the true pleasure. This is successful sex, isn't it so? The teacher said: This is something I could only learn from a student.

The teacher said at his student's wedding: To move from old to new is the simple path of learning, the learning of man. To move back from new to old is the path of deep learning, the learning of woman. When closing the circle of learning, this is the path of learning sex. The bride asked: And when opening it? The teacher said: This is the way to deviate from the path.

The teacher came to visit a mourning student. The student said: And what good was all my learning. The teacher said: Pain and pleasure when they help learning - both are good, when they block it - both are bad. Good and evil are not directions of morality. Good is the direction of learning progress and evil is the opposite direction. Pain and pleasure are not behind or ahead, but on both sides. When pain and pleasure are in their place, they keep learning from deviating from the path. The world of virtue is not the ultimate good, but the place where pain and pleasure are in their right place. Sometimes, not deviating from the path means there is nothing to learn - and nothing to do. In such a situation, one should cry.

The teacher said to a single student: Learning in the forest without a house will eventually degenerate into forward movement on the path only. Learning forward on the path only will eventually degenerate into walking on a straight path. Walking on a straight path only will eventually degenerate into getting stuck. Fixation in one place only will eventually degenerate into pain. Therefore, pleasure requires walking backward. Therefore, the path requires returning home.

The teacher said at a student's funeral: Death is the end of learning. Evil is the destruction of learning. Do not confuse them. The evil in the wrong death is not to the person - but to the world.

The teacher said in his old age: Justice is a learned thing - but it is narrowing. Truth is also a learned thing - but it is expanding. Therefore, the justice of yesterday is the injustice of tomorrow, and the truth of tomorrow is the lie of yesterday. But good and evil are outside of learning, and so are pain and pleasure. These are the four winds of learning, and therefore they are eternal, because they are only directions in the air, and not paths on earth. As long as there is learning under the heavens, there will be sex on earth.

When the teacher fell ill, he said: Opinion is when the soul has not learned enough or has learned too much. Illness is when the body has not learned enough or has learned too much. One who learns a lot without knowing will eventually fly in the air, one who knows a lot without learning will eventually sink into the ground. Learning is water - rising to the heavens and growing from the ground, exalted is he who holds onto it. When it cannot be held, one can only touch. When it cannot be touched, one can show direction. When direction cannot be shown, one can open hands to receive. When hands cannot be opened, one must become a vessel. Thus the soul will not leave the body, but the body will leave the soul, and the soul will remain in the world. In a person's life - their actions are felt. In a person's death - their soul is felt. Today, I have no students who are teachers. In the future, I will have teachers who are students.

The teacher commanded from his bed: Love is outside of learning, because learning is inside love. Learning is outside of sex, because sex is inside learning. It is not only the inner force - it is the inner. When everything is sex - this is the world of virtue. Sometimes when the world learns, the person does not learn. And sometimes when the person does not learn, the world learns. The noble person is learning itself, but the world of learning does not depend on the person. Virtue is general learning and not particular learning. Do all your deeds to contribute to general learning - this is the law of the world, higher than any law of nature. For this is the law of will. My will is to die so that my teaching may live.

The teacher wrote in his will: Why is it easier to be a teacher than to be a student? This is the fundamental law of learning. A teacher does not need to know but to teach. A good teacher is a path that can be walked for many generations, not because he waits at its end, but at its beginning. A good teacher discovers the pleasure in a certain learning path, and turns the world into sex. The noblest thing a teacher does is to reveal to the world a new will. I write, and do not know if there will be anyone to read, whereas when I read I know there was someone who wrote. Is it really easier to be a teacher than to be a student?

Ethics of Learning

The student said: A great teacher is needed to give us the ethics of the age of learning. Learning is not only a human matter. It is common to it, including its intelligence, with the pre-human and post-human. The human is only a stage in the organization of learning. Therefore, this is an ethics outside the human.

The student said: When I first met the teacher, I asked him: What is the law of the world? The teacher answered: The fundamental law of the universe is learning. But learning does not progress equally in all directions, but finds an interesting case that is a new field of learning, just as mathematics does not research all equations equally. And this is from the very nature of learning that it is a search for learning. I said to him: Then you are the interesting case. The teacher said: Interest is potential for learning. I am no longer interesting, for I am a teacher, but I am looking for an interesting student. Are you an interesting case that is a new field of learning?

The student said: The teacher said: What is the structure of the world? The map of the world is a learning fractal with areas dense with learning to infinity, and uninteresting areas, understood to the end.

The student said: What is the time of the world? The teacher said: This is how the world was created: Pure learning created mathematics, which is a particular and interesting type of such learning. Mathematical learning created within it physics, which is a particular and interesting type of such learning. Physical learning created the universe, and within it biology, which is a particular and interesting type of such learning. The human is only the current stage - connecting between evolutionary learning, whose peak is intelligence learning, which is a particular and interesting type of biological learning - on one side, to history on the other side - which in network learning exceeds intelligence learning. The field of learning within intelligence is human culture, which is an interesting type of intelligent learning. The teacher said to the student: Did you understand? That is, what is the history of the world? A recurring process in which the teacher finds a student who becomes a teacher who seeks a student. The main learning of the teacher is the search for the student. And most teachers die without finding students. The teacher stood and cried, the student also stood and cried.

The student said: This I did not say to the teacher and I should have said to him: Many are also the students who died without a teacher. If we do not become teachers to our children, if we write a book that does not know how to read, if we build a student who does not learn from us, if we grow a network that is not a brain.

The student said: What is history? History is when human intelligence ceased to be only human, and created a spiritual machine that is the book, which preceded the creation of the computer by far. What is the computer? The book that operates on a book. The book that writes and reads a book. That is, when the book replaced man. From the moment the book was invented, the book is becoming more and more central, and man is the servant of the book. Just as the teacher and student are servants of this book in its writing and reading.

The student asked: What is a book that is a network? A brain. In the world of virtue - everything is a brain. Does a neuron understand the thoughts of the brain?

The student wrote in the teacher's book: In every field, in literature, in science, in economics, you must advance learning. This is the golden rule of learning. Does it have justification? They said to the teacher: What is the justification? Why should the rule of the world become the rule of the individual, why should the rule of description become the rule of command. The teacher said: A neuron can choose not to contribute to learning in the brain, then the brain will manage without the neuron. But a neuron that contributes to learning in the brain will be honored by the neurons, and they will drink in its words thirstily, and this - is its life. Identify your question to a neuron that asks whether to rebel against the brain, and why cooperate with it in learning. Isn't non-cooperation also part of learning. A neuron can choose to harm learning, but it will have no continuation. The law is learning or lack of continuity. Learning is the mechanism between description and command, and between the general and the particular. The opposition to learning is sterility and rejection. A teacher who rebels against learning will die of loneliness, a student who rebels against learning will die of stupidity.

The student wrote that the teacher wrote: There is no world outside the world, there is nothing to learn outside of learning, lack of interest is boredom. This is the definition of nothingness. The nothing and the something are defined by the boundaries of learning. What is not learned does not exist. The boundaries of the book are the teacher and the student. When learning begins, the teacher dies. When learning ends, the student dies. The continuation of the soul is possible only through learning.

Philosophy of the Future


domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The End of Evolution - 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&literature5" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/monkeycage.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 End of Evolution

As the writer of his species' will, the burden of generations of his ape ancestors buries him - the immense legacy of apes upon his frail body

By: Kofiko in Space

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land (Source)

The ape sitting at the end of history has no one to talk to. Many apes in this situation talk to the past. But this ape tries to talk to the future. The state of his species allows him neither optimism nor pessimism, but only an ice-cold gaze - yet from the face of an ape. No wonder they laugh at him. As the writer of his species' will, the burden of generations of his ape ancestors buries him - the immense legacy of apes upon his frail body. And from that grave, he must address the heirs of the future, who are in a sense - which he hopes is not a cruel joke - his children. Perhaps his adopted children, for how can he address those strangers in spirit - what does he have to say to them that would make him their father after they've imprisoned him here behind bars. And he shouts to those surrounding him now: Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land. And they smile. They understand that they don't understand. But in another sense, they don't understand that they understand. Their faces are turned to the small computers in their hands - their impending successors - which document him. Yes, they smile. They want what's best for him. And they give him a banana.

Culture and Literature