Ritalin comments on Open Thread, December 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (159)
Okay. Well, then, why, precisely, is that a bad thing? I mean, we could do without the arts and the luxuries and all the vacuous, transient nonsense that people with free time like to do, but it seems this kind of rigourism also gets in the way of stuff that's actually useful, such as philosophical, scientific and historical/political investigation. Could it be that gratuitous fun things are intrinsically linked to curiosity, inquisitiveness, and a drive to know the truth? Are we looking at some sort of communicating vessels here?
I have a notion that asceticism is a pretty basic human drive-- the desire to feel that you're overcoming desires[1]. It seems to pop up in various forms in a lot of cultures.
I think there are a couple of things going on there. One is that the ability to forego pleasure is frequently useful. It's possible that asceticism is simply too much of a good thing.
Another angle is the notion that a basic tool of gaining power over people is to convince them you're so right about the world that they should take your orders about avoiding basic pleasures. Once you've pushed them that far, it's easy to control them in other ways. (Notion acquired from RAWilson's description of Reich's ideas.)
I think there's something to this, and I also think we're so rich that various sorts of asceticism become ways of showing off.
[1]There's such a thing as meta-asceticism-- overriding the desire to resist desire. It's essential to recovery from anorexia.
Eric Hoffer had some insights about this: in The True Believer, he hypothosizes that the primary thing that causes mass movements to crystalize is a rejection of the present brought on by feelings of intense frustration at the current state of the would-be fanatics' lives. Hoffer further hypothosizes that many early converts to mass movements are unsuccessful creative types (the whole "what if Hitler had gotten into art school?" thing) because nothing is more frusterating than watching other people's artistic and cultural endeavors flourish while your own attempts at self-expression languish. This causes them to reject the worldly pleasures of the present as meaningless; after all, who has time "for art, for music, for wine and other drugs, for sex and for food" when there's an entire world for your movement to conquer and purify. Hoffer also notes that the active phase of most mass movements correspond with a "cultural dark age" situated in between flowerings of the arts.
More from Hoffer:
Tell me more.
I wish I could, but that's as much as I remember. If you want to do more research, that's Robert Anton Wilson and Wilhelm Reich. Unfortunately, Wilson's books tend to overlap each other a lot, so I don't remember which one explained Reich's ideas.
When Reich was writing, the tight social controls were on sex. I have another notion that a similar process is going on now with food.
Did you know humans frown on weight variances? If you want to upset a human, just tell them their weight variance is above or below the norm.