Whatever its political, pedagogical, cultural content, the plan is always to get some meaning across, to keep the masses within reason; an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the constantly repeated imperative to moralise information to better inform, to better socialize, to raise the cultural level of the masses, etc. Nonsense: the masses scandalously resist this imperative of rational communication. They are giving meaning: they want spectacle.
I was curious why the Baudrillard comment was downvoted when it expresses the same idea as the Nietzsche comment, it just uses a different style and approaches the problem from a different direction. Ideas, anyone?
Priming? Beaudrillard is associated with humanities, pomo and academic philosophy; Nietzche is associated with atheism, contrarianism and the idea of the ubermensch. The comment doesn’t seem to be very strongly downvoted; possibly you’re just dealing with detractors here (I daresay LW has more fans of the latter than of the former).
This was roughly my thought as well. I thought there might also have been more substantive differences though and I was curious what those might be. The only thing I could see is that Baudrillard’s quote had a tone that’s more critical of the masses and the way they do politics, and that Baudrillard’s quote could be misread as an injunction to stop trying to make people rational (which it’s not).
Well, I’m not even sure whether Boudrillard’s quote is grammatically well-formed, so there’s that. Then again, postmodernist texts tend to be imbued with near-poetical and mystical qualities. Much like Zen koans, they’re more about exemplifying a particular mind-posture and way of thinking than they are about straightforward argumentation. I think it’s unfair to expect LessWrongers to be familiar with such texts.
Oh. So this quote is difficult to read, then? More difficult than the Nietzsche one? I guess inferential gaps must be coming into play here. I’m having a difficult time trying to not-understand it, trying to emphasize with your viewpoint. I’m having a difficult time believing that you couldn’t understand the quote, honestly.
I feel like you’re generalizing too much about post modernism. I like lots of it, and don’t think that it’s mystical oriented. I would say rather that it packs a lot of information into a small amount of words through the clever use of words and through recurring concepts and subtle variations on those concepts.
Post modernism can be difficult to understand, but I don’t think it is in this case, and I think that it’s complexity is justified. Scientists use obscure terminology, but for a good purpose, generally. Some scientists use obscure terminology to hide the flaws in their ideas. I view post modern criticisms in almost exactly the same way—their complexity can be for both good and bad.
Also, Baudrillard is French. It might not be his fault if there’s problems with the translated text.
I’m using “mystical” in a rather specialized sense, actually. What I mean is that postmodernist texts seem to eschew straightforward arguments—instead they use rhetorical and poetical patterns in a functional way, to inspire a specific mental stance in the reader. This mental stance might be quite simply described as “emptying the teacup”, i.e. questioning and letting go of the “cached thoughts” which comprise one’s current understanding of reality and culture. This mental stance happens to be remarkably useful in textual criticism and social science, where one often has to come to terms with (and perhaps reconstruct, at least partially) cultures which are far apart from one’s own, so that a “filled cup” would be a significant hindrance.
Oh, and yes, I had quite a bit of trouble with trying to understand the Beaudrillard quote, although I did grok the gist of it, and I also got the similarity wrt. the Nietzsche one. But I’d say that grammar is clearer in Nietzsche’s quote, and even his rhetoric seems more direct and to the point here.
Nope, I’m a native French speaker and my reaction to Baudrillard is “WTF?” and building a Markov Baudrillard quote generator to see if I can tell the difference.
Jargon is good. Vaguely defined jargon isn’t bad—sometimes all you can do is say “sweet refers to the taste of sugar, if you don’t know what that is I can’t help you”.
But structure shouldn’t be completely unclear. Baudrillard has a lot of “X is Y” statements and very few “therefore”s. I can’t tell what is a conclusion, what is an argument, what is a definition, or even whether there are anything but conclusions.
I’ve found some Baudrillard texts that clearly mean things, but they’re not very good.
This one isn’t that bad. (For utter, words-don’t-work-that-way confusion, see Debord. Or good ol’ Hegel.)
Whatever its political, pedagogical, cultural content, the plan is always to get some meaning across,
That bit is straightforward.
to keep the masses within reason;
“The masses” has a standard denotation but various connotations. Freddy Nietzsche talks about enthusiastic young people, which is more specific.
What’s “to keep within reason”? What this evokes is talking someone down, preventing outbursts. Applied to the masses, does he mean control—propaganda, opiate of the masses? The context suggests the opposite: to present a logical argument and try to convince audiences with it as the core of communication, more important than ethos and pathos and Cheetos.
an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the constantly repeated imperative to moralise information to better inform, to better socialize, to raise the cultural level of the masses, etc.
What?
an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the constantly repeated imperative
Okay, “imperative” seems to mean what social justice types can “enforcement by shaming”. If you don’t talk like a Vulcan, whoever is producing those great media reform plans (pretentious elites?) will shame you.
to moralise information
Okay, so media becomes morally loaded: information good, fluff bad. Much like food is morally loaded: vegetables good, fat bad.
to better inform, to better socialize, to raise the cultural level of the masses, etc.
Examples! Hallelujah, hosanna in excelsis! So the media reformers want to make people better. If you say a thing and hearing it doesn’t make listeners better, you’re selling junk food.
Nonsense: the masses scandalously resist this imperative of rational communication.
That seems pretty clear too: logical arguments aren’t what convinces people. Nietzsche says that too, but in a more specific context: recruiting for a cause.
They are giving meaning:
I assume this means: “the masses decide what they want to take from what they hear, and it’s not logical argument, it’s”
they want spectacle.
I’ll grant that “spectacle” is a totally precise and useful term of art that people clearly define whenever I’m out of earshot. But if he’s saying what Fred says, he doesn’t need the jargon; it’s not a rare concept.
Freddypants is saying “If you want a young, energetic, status-seeking enthusiast to be enthusiastic about your cause, don’t bother calmly explaining why your cause is good. Instead, make it look awesome and promise exciting heroics.”. (Which he what he does in Zarathustra, and it worked on me but I already agreed.) Baudrillard appears to be saying “If you want to convince people, calm explanations won’t work.”.
Baudrillard, In the Shadow of Silent Majorities
I was curious why the Baudrillard comment was downvoted when it expresses the same idea as the Nietzsche comment, it just uses a different style and approaches the problem from a different direction. Ideas, anyone?
Priming? Beaudrillard is associated with humanities, pomo and academic philosophy; Nietzche is associated with atheism, contrarianism and the idea of the ubermensch. The comment doesn’t seem to be very strongly downvoted; possibly you’re just dealing with detractors here (I daresay LW has more fans of the latter than of the former).
This was roughly my thought as well. I thought there might also have been more substantive differences though and I was curious what those might be. The only thing I could see is that Baudrillard’s quote had a tone that’s more critical of the masses and the way they do politics, and that Baudrillard’s quote could be misread as an injunction to stop trying to make people rational (which it’s not).
Well, I’m not even sure whether Boudrillard’s quote is grammatically well-formed, so there’s that. Then again, postmodernist texts tend to be imbued with near-poetical and mystical qualities. Much like Zen koans, they’re more about exemplifying a particular mind-posture and way of thinking than they are about straightforward argumentation. I think it’s unfair to expect LessWrongers to be familiar with such texts.
Oh. So this quote is difficult to read, then? More difficult than the Nietzsche one? I guess inferential gaps must be coming into play here. I’m having a difficult time trying to not-understand it, trying to emphasize with your viewpoint. I’m having a difficult time believing that you couldn’t understand the quote, honestly.
I feel like you’re generalizing too much about post modernism. I like lots of it, and don’t think that it’s mystical oriented. I would say rather that it packs a lot of information into a small amount of words through the clever use of words and through recurring concepts and subtle variations on those concepts.
Post modernism can be difficult to understand, but I don’t think it is in this case, and I think that it’s complexity is justified. Scientists use obscure terminology, but for a good purpose, generally. Some scientists use obscure terminology to hide the flaws in their ideas. I view post modern criticisms in almost exactly the same way—their complexity can be for both good and bad.
Also, Baudrillard is French. It might not be his fault if there’s problems with the translated text.
I’m using “mystical” in a rather specialized sense, actually. What I mean is that postmodernist texts seem to eschew straightforward arguments—instead they use rhetorical and poetical patterns in a functional way, to inspire a specific mental stance in the reader. This mental stance might be quite simply described as “emptying the teacup”, i.e. questioning and letting go of the “cached thoughts” which comprise one’s current understanding of reality and culture. This mental stance happens to be remarkably useful in textual criticism and social science, where one often has to come to terms with (and perhaps reconstruct, at least partially) cultures which are far apart from one’s own, so that a “filled cup” would be a significant hindrance.
Oh, and yes, I had quite a bit of trouble with trying to understand the Beaudrillard quote, although I did grok the gist of it, and I also got the similarity wrt. the Nietzsche one. But I’d say that grammar is clearer in Nietzsche’s quote, and even his rhetoric seems more direct and to the point here.
Okay, gotcha. Thanks.
Nope, I’m a native French speaker and my reaction to Baudrillard is “WTF?” and building a Markov Baudrillard quote generator to see if I can tell the difference.
Jargon is good. Vaguely defined jargon isn’t bad—sometimes all you can do is say “sweet refers to the taste of sugar, if you don’t know what that is I can’t help you”.
But structure shouldn’t be completely unclear. Baudrillard has a lot of “X is Y” statements and very few “therefore”s. I can’t tell what is a conclusion, what is an argument, what is a definition, or even whether there are anything but conclusions.
I’ve found some Baudrillard texts that clearly mean things, but they’re not very good.
Can you specify more about what parts of the quote are confusing?
This one isn’t that bad. (For utter, words-don’t-work-that-way confusion, see Debord. Or good ol’ Hegel.)
That bit is straightforward.
“The masses” has a standard denotation but various connotations. Freddy Nietzsche talks about enthusiastic young people, which is more specific.
What’s “to keep within reason”? What this evokes is talking someone down, preventing outbursts. Applied to the masses, does he mean control—propaganda, opiate of the masses? The context suggests the opposite: to present a logical argument and try to convince audiences with it as the core of communication, more important than ethos and pathos and Cheetos.
What?
Okay, “imperative” seems to mean what social justice types can “enforcement by shaming”. If you don’t talk like a Vulcan, whoever is producing those great media reform plans (pretentious elites?) will shame you.
Okay, so media becomes morally loaded: information good, fluff bad. Much like food is morally loaded: vegetables good, fat bad.
Examples! Hallelujah, hosanna in excelsis! So the media reformers want to make people better. If you say a thing and hearing it doesn’t make listeners better, you’re selling junk food.
That seems pretty clear too: logical arguments aren’t what convinces people. Nietzsche says that too, but in a more specific context: recruiting for a cause.
I assume this means: “the masses decide what they want to take from what they hear, and it’s not logical argument, it’s”
I’ll grant that “spectacle” is a totally precise and useful term of art that people clearly define whenever I’m out of earshot. But if he’s saying what Fred says, he doesn’t need the jargon; it’s not a rare concept.
Freddypants is saying “If you want a young, energetic, status-seeking enthusiast to be enthusiastic about your cause, don’t bother calmly explaining why your cause is good. Instead, make it look awesome and promise exciting heroics.”. (Which he what he does in Zarathustra, and it worked on me but I already agreed.) Baudrillard appears to be saying “If you want to convince people, calm explanations won’t work.”.
Okay, thank you.
I agree that Hegel is ridiculously opaque, too.