Just the very starkest most ratiocinationary combination of a contrarian red herring and a false dilemma

I am going to state my well-worn opinion that TLP doesn’t do that, he doesn’t have a particularly good grip on how narcissists think, certainly doesn’t say anything that could productively grapple with narcissism, is a boring asshole, and is shit at his job. But his style is incredibly flattering to the reader’s pessimism. He knows how to tell you you’re getting the good shit nobody else will give you - it’s just that it isn’t particularly good shit.

Check out Section III of your classic.

What have you learned so far? Do you think you've understood?

You heard the story, you heard the words, but your mind unheard it and replaced it with something else. Even after I tell you this, you'll have trouble remembering it.

You think Narcissus was so in love with himself that he couldn't love anyone else. But that's not what happened, the story clearly tells it in the reverse: he never loved anyone and then he fell in love with himself. Do you see? Because he never loved anyone, he fell in love with himself. That was Narcissus's punishment.

You thought Narcissus rejected all those people because he was in love with himself, but he rejected them all before he loved himself. Loved himself? Do you think Narcissus rejected them because he thought he was better than them? Or better looking? How would he have known he was so beautiful? He didn't even recognize his own reflection! He rejected all those people because they loved him.

What does he do with that passage? It’s a numbered section so it must be important! He bullies you. Or rather, he bullies somebody. But of course, you DID read sections I and II. So you know that in the last sentence of Section II he’s cleverly turned the tables on the traditional interpretation of the story, a point he goes on to reiterate at the end of this Section III. But he’s planted in your mind one of two ideas, depending on what kind of reader you are (a) if you’re a pliable reader, you might question whether you REALLY got it without being told a second time, (b) if you’re a little more self-confident, now it occurs to you that there IS another kind of reader - not nearly as careful as you are - to whom Section III DOES apply.

What effect does this have? Primarily, it’s giving you the idea that TLP is the smart one in the room. The straight talker who keeps people on their toes and makes them pay attention.

But what’s true in his reversal isn’t actually that clever, it’s actually just this:

if no one ever seems right for you, and then the one person who does seem right doesn't want you, then the problem isn't the person, the problem is you

Now if I had told you this banal truism in that one sentence, and then added to it the heavy implication that you - and everybody else you know - is a pitiable narcissist who needs to read a lot more blog posts to get well, you might be tempted to say I was (a) an arsehole, (b) going a bit overboard with the narcissism thing.

You might not be tempted to read the other 7 or 8 sections of my post.

This stuff has real consequences. TLP’s particular view puts such banal truisms on a foundation of reactionary masculinism and pessimism. You are fallen, and you - you pitiable narcissist - need to be SHAKED BY THE THROAT to cure you of your narcissism. Well I am here to tell you that that’s wrong. Perhaps it works for this person or other, or they THINK it works for them because it flatters their own aspiraingly muscular pessimism, but by and large it doesn’t. By and large, what works for people is communication, community, and connection.

And he makes it sound, if you really twist it apart, like that’s what he’s telling you works. But he isn’t! He’s telling you to eat what you’re given and forget entirely about what you thought you wanted.

He is RIGHT that nothing is never not about us. But that doesn’t make us narcissists. That sets up an implied standard that he doesn’t state outright because it’s ludicrous: in order to not be a narcissist, on this view, you would have to never consider yourself in your own choices. Those choices, by the way, which are the only choices in the universe over which you have any control! It’s funny that we’re doing this in a thread about slave morality, because I would hazard that at the root of TLP’s pessimism (re: narcissism) is the impossibly high standard for self-sacrifice set by Christianity - a standard I have personally seen bring many people to their knees (and that is, of course, another criticism of TLP: to take him at his word is to learn how to punish yourself into oblivion).

If it helps you on your way to those things to be bullied now and again, fine, and I’ve certainly seen that work on a temporary basis, but TLP’s panacea stops at the surface and takes no interest in the deeper person. Of course it does, he’s doing a Hunter Thompson bit!

The interesting thing about this is that these people never stop to think that the future they dream off might never happen. Aside from the fact that their cryo company might just go under, they don’t ever consider that in 200 years they might just wake up under a dystopia.

At one time I was going out with someone who was into Max More, without either of us being cogniscant of the rationalist link back then, and she gave me the infuriating justification that it was all a probabilities game with a bizarre political economy in the background. The thinking goes that if your society becomes a dystopia, there’s no reason and/or no resources to wake you up. Looking back, it’s amazing to see it as a combination of that characteristically (neo/)lib failure of imagination and Promethean ideology.

Oh fuck. It took me to see the twitter avi to remember but I have Oliver Habryka registered as “absolute psychopath” in my tortured memory box since way back. Nice to see him doing so well but I wish I could remember what triggered the original mental note, assuming that it was ever anything that specific

I like to picture it as somebody with a polymathic understanding of how to commit a variety of financial crimes crossing jurisdictional boundaries

Not everything is about your toy train world geopolitical supremacy and there are people far too rich and powerful to give a shit about it who benefit from your believing that it is

Believe me, I’m not even American: it’s just you, me, and everyone getting the shaft on all five other continents as well

It’s from Maps of Meaning, per the caption, so no this is from his original theory of everything.

Nonetheless, to be perfectly honest, I honestly can’t complain that he put something weird like that in the book as such. What, after all, is actually wrong with it, assuming a certain amount of charity about context relevance? That it’s gross to recount weird sexually charged dreams you had about your grandmother?

For a psychologist in the tradition of Jung, and therefore to a great extent Freud, such material might actually be quite useful! Amongst the worst things therapy culture - and perhaps the whole ideology of post-Freud psychology/iatry/therapy - does is to rehabilitate prudishness about what it is and is not acceptable to talk about in our psychic lives, when liberation from those oppressive norms is precisely the best achievement of those aspects of Freud which remain uncontroversial (not to mention those which are only controversial for bad reasons).

You know the whole thing: “we don’t talk about that wanting to have sex with your mother stuff”, well why on Earth not? Amongst the most obvious things in the world is that people are incredibly weird and complex. Why cave in to propriety and ignore it?

Lots of people have experiences like this, and therefore by definition it’s important to discuss them - non-pathologically - if you want to understand (and improve) people’s psychic life.

I like some people who have written for Jacobin, sometimes I even enjoy an article here and there, but the magazine as a whole remains utterly unbeaten in the “will walk the length of Manhattan in a “GIANT RUBE” sandwich board for clicks” stakes

i had a moment and i wanted to share it with everybody

To be clear: it is all movie plot threats. At the very forefront of the entire “existential threat” space is nothing but a mid-1990s VHS library. Frankly if you want to understand like 50% of what goes on in AI at this point my recommendation is just that you read John Ganz and listen to his podcast, because 90s pop and politics culture is the connective tissue of the whole fucking enterprise.

All i hear is that “polycule drama” is back on the table

I reply: Because the strength of the material is determined by its weakest link, not its strongest link. A structure of steel beams held together at the vertices by Scotch tape (and lacking other clever arrangements of mechanical advantage) has the strength of Scotch tape rather than the strength of steel.

This is sub-childishly false and he opens with it. Unbelievable.