“Structure beyond bare bones becomes a cage for an improviser.”
Well put. I personally love these free-flowing articles. It’s more akin to how I’ve always written essays - follow the brush and then edit it back. It’s nowhere near as enjoyable otherwise.
On the line of taking a single idea and riffing on it, I’ve employed the practice of taking 1 song, preferably one that invokes some emotional response, no matter the emotion, and playing it on repeat without any other distractions and a blank page and then seeing what comes out of your unconscious.
It’s fun, and really lends credence to the power of music. Compare what you write when listening to Elliot Smith on repeat for an hour vs Jimi Hendrix, and compare how you feel. It’ll make you second guess yourself next time you’re feeling melancholic and want to lean into it with some music rather than try to lift yourself out of it.
“It’s less visibly apparent because it is now something of a given, in the same way that short-term zero-commitment sexual relationships have filtered down from Edwardian aristocratic coterie to Swinging Sixties Free Love to now just being something that simply is, a largely unremarked upon facet of young adulthood. The phenomenon hasn’t disappeared so much as it has largely moved below the level of our noticing.”
Ooof. Been discussing this one quite a bit lately, because a lot of people haven’t adapted to it very well, probably due to its abnormality, especially when it continues past University. Couple this with the evolution of VR-porn and sex-robots, and rising rates of single women drinking heavily and taking anti-depressants and the next 10-20 years look pretty bleak in some respects.
This is the cynical viewpoint of course - I am an optimist through and through and full on aboard the soaring 20’s bandwagon. I still think the good guys will win out over the bullshit, technocratic monoculture once enough people have opened their eyes to the reality of it - because once you see it, it’s largely impossible to go back.
One interesting thing I saw recently about left vs right, was that they almost only interact online with their own ‘team’. Trump supports only talk to other Trump supports, Biden/Hillary supporters the same, beyond the odd moving rely. They exist in two entirely separate online bubbles, kept that way by algorithms that try to show you more of what you like. It’s strange, but makes perfect sense when you think about it.
“Digital Natives have now come of age having spent their entire lives making performative and self-aggrandising gestures for the collective online gaze.”
Stories. Instagram/snapchat stories are the worst innovation in the last 10 years.
Turning every prick with a smartphone into an amateur YouTube overnight, nothing is secret anymore. It was worse in college, but even now it’s always the same thing - everything goes online, everything is recorded. I think it’s a large part of the reason coolness has died. There’s no mystery anymore. You can find out everything you want about most people in 15 minutes of cyberstalking - a practice which is now a given and not even worth mentioning.
Some things are better off left unknown, or as a funny anecdote. Tell stories and let them fill in the gaps, don’t whip out your phone for a 6 minute multi-camera, play-by-play - no one cares.
Apologies for the negativity, rant just poured out of me - I’ll get back in line with the positive spirit of the article. Excellent points on dealing with narcissism. Don’t bullshit yourself (or others), don’t distract yourself to death, and think about other people more. Absolutely timeless advice that we really need to remind ourselves of more often.
Excellent post - too many little lines that I loved to point out, but that’s always the case.
Enjoying catching up on these, time get away from me this past few weeks!
I think a lot of the NPC hate simply comes from fear; we all love to think of ourselves as sovereign individuals ("we're all different!") and we tend to think that because we have a certain set of specific culture-hobbies-tastes, that makes us unique. Like standalone worlds. But since the rise of the "memes" in 2008-2010, we've come to realize that we can relate to a lot of them and that our thoughts and the way we react to different situations are not that much different and unique... So instead of taking the humbleness path, we make fun of it and demonize it through laughter. It's the same dynamic at recess, where early on, the official school bully will choose this year's scapegoat/punching bag and all the other kids who are usually nice and respectul end up making fun of him/her because it is a way to shield themselves and make sure the troubles won't focus on them. We like to spit on the NPC because spiting on it makes us feel like we have nothing to do with it. It's just the zeitgeist scarecrow that keeps us from looking inside and seeing unpleasant truths about ourselves.
It is also a way of thinking born from the old world, where if someone was winning, that meant you were losing. So you have to make fun of the NPC, because if you dont... What does that say about you ?
"Namely, try to focus on what you actually do rather than what you claim you are. Action precedes identity ".
I think this is the most important part of the article. As Goethe said in a famous quote (yeah, I'm quoting Goethe, see I'm not a normie), "How shall we learn to know ourselves? By reflection? Never; but only through action". And in our social media age, we're often more concerned in spending our energy trying to create our image, rather than creating things and deeds that will tell this image themselves. I feel like most people define themselves through elimination: "If I am not X, and I don't like Y, that must mean I'm Z". And the NPC meme is probably the easiest and lowest common denominator available. But the issue in defining ourselves through elimination is that we'll only just be some form of reaction to something else. There will never be true creativity and originality, since our frame of definition is tied to someone else's (and a negative one !).
Last thing: you'll always be someone or something's NPC. Yeah, you may have a peculiar taste in bluegrass jazz, but are you sure that you're not an NPC within that specific frame of reference? You can see it in specialized internet forums where some members often lash out at each others telling themselves they don't have any originality, imagination, that they only like popular/mundane stuff... while still being within the 5%ish passionate enough to writes hundreds of post on a very specialized subject... The war againt the NPC is simply a war that cannot be won. So we'd better start applying some of the Dr. Bevan's prescriptions. Our future self will probably thank us... Or make memes about our old self.
Great comment - loved this in particular "But the issue in defining ourselves through elimination is that we'll only just be some form of reaction to something else. There will never be true creativity and originality, since our frame of definition is tied to someone else's (and a negative one !)."
That's just beautifully put, and absolutely true.
Completely agree about always being someone or something's NP. Sure you can try and have a handful of niche interests, and be an extremely specific expert in all of those (and why not try if it's something you really enjoy?), but if it's to the detriment of everything else - i.e. if I am not an expert or on the way there, then I'm not interested - it's probably a bad idea.
I think those that attempt something like that just find it very difficult to relate to 'normal' people in any way. I personally keep tabs on popular tv shows (don't watch them), multiple sports, and general pop culture trends, without it really taking up any mental bandwidth.
I've got no stock in it, no skin in the game, but it helps me to talk to more people, rather than if I refused to acknowledge everything outside of pre-renaissnace books, french cuisine, and pole fishing, I would probably have a difficult time of it - and most people would think I'm a gobshite anyway.
There's a story about Oscar Wilde that I read years ago which always stuck out to me, from when he went to America. He found himself, this gay, eloquent, flamboyantly dressed man in bars with miners, and they took to him immediately and he to them. Laughing and drinking in the pub, a man they should by all means have hated had become a friend.
Embellished or not, it's always stood out to me as a reminder not to see yourself as above someone, simply because of a disparity in education and a different set of experiences in life. We're all human at the end of the day right?
I hear the phrase ‘sovereign individuals’ banded about a lot. I guess it’s one of those things in the intellectual zeitgeist that has passed me by. As it very common.
As to your excellent comment there is a newsletter on gatekeeping that is begging to be written which if nothing else will prove to be entertaining as I struggle to not descend into the absurdity of gatekeeping the idea of gatekeeping.
But yeah, as you dig further and further into special interests and niches you discover that everyone is an NPC ultimately. Which is freeing. Accepting your ordinariness is the key to becoming extraordinary. Everything ultimately descends into paradox.
It’s a very, very easy trap to fall into. In an attention economy participation is encouraged above all else (‘all news is good news’ ‘my haters are just making me more famous’ etc).
Refusing to critique nonsense on its own terms is a big part of the solution, but of course it brings *us* no attention and so this tactic is rarely utilised. And if it were you wouldn’t notice until it reached a critical mass- I.e a certain outlets click bait articles all received so little engagement that they finally decide to change tact.
This is what I hope the future will start to bring.
That kind of points towards rightful skepticism, or instead of being a centrist or a radical idealist, maybe judge each side with rigor? The ability to choose yes vs no is the ultimate key to be free. "Ideological Turing Test" comes to mind.
“Structure beyond bare bones becomes a cage for an improviser.”
Well put. I personally love these free-flowing articles. It’s more akin to how I’ve always written essays - follow the brush and then edit it back. It’s nowhere near as enjoyable otherwise.
On the line of taking a single idea and riffing on it, I’ve employed the practice of taking 1 song, preferably one that invokes some emotional response, no matter the emotion, and playing it on repeat without any other distractions and a blank page and then seeing what comes out of your unconscious.
It’s fun, and really lends credence to the power of music. Compare what you write when listening to Elliot Smith on repeat for an hour vs Jimi Hendrix, and compare how you feel. It’ll make you second guess yourself next time you’re feeling melancholic and want to lean into it with some music rather than try to lift yourself out of it.
“It’s less visibly apparent because it is now something of a given, in the same way that short-term zero-commitment sexual relationships have filtered down from Edwardian aristocratic coterie to Swinging Sixties Free Love to now just being something that simply is, a largely unremarked upon facet of young adulthood. The phenomenon hasn’t disappeared so much as it has largely moved below the level of our noticing.”
Ooof. Been discussing this one quite a bit lately, because a lot of people haven’t adapted to it very well, probably due to its abnormality, especially when it continues past University. Couple this with the evolution of VR-porn and sex-robots, and rising rates of single women drinking heavily and taking anti-depressants and the next 10-20 years look pretty bleak in some respects.
This is the cynical viewpoint of course - I am an optimist through and through and full on aboard the soaring 20’s bandwagon. I still think the good guys will win out over the bullshit, technocratic monoculture once enough people have opened their eyes to the reality of it - because once you see it, it’s largely impossible to go back.
One interesting thing I saw recently about left vs right, was that they almost only interact online with their own ‘team’. Trump supports only talk to other Trump supports, Biden/Hillary supporters the same, beyond the odd moving rely. They exist in two entirely separate online bubbles, kept that way by algorithms that try to show you more of what you like. It’s strange, but makes perfect sense when you think about it.
“Digital Natives have now come of age having spent their entire lives making performative and self-aggrandising gestures for the collective online gaze.”
Stories. Instagram/snapchat stories are the worst innovation in the last 10 years.
Turning every prick with a smartphone into an amateur YouTube overnight, nothing is secret anymore. It was worse in college, but even now it’s always the same thing - everything goes online, everything is recorded. I think it’s a large part of the reason coolness has died. There’s no mystery anymore. You can find out everything you want about most people in 15 minutes of cyberstalking - a practice which is now a given and not even worth mentioning.
Some things are better off left unknown, or as a funny anecdote. Tell stories and let them fill in the gaps, don’t whip out your phone for a 6 minute multi-camera, play-by-play - no one cares.
Apologies for the negativity, rant just poured out of me - I’ll get back in line with the positive spirit of the article. Excellent points on dealing with narcissism. Don’t bullshit yourself (or others), don’t distract yourself to death, and think about other people more. Absolutely timeless advice that we really need to remind ourselves of more often.
Excellent post - too many little lines that I loved to point out, but that’s always the case.
Enjoying catching up on these, time get away from me this past few weeks!
Appreciate the newsletter. Makes email worth checking.
That’s great to hear. It’s what I’m here for. Thanks for getting in touch.
Hey Thomas ! Nice piece this week.
I think a lot of the NPC hate simply comes from fear; we all love to think of ourselves as sovereign individuals ("we're all different!") and we tend to think that because we have a certain set of specific culture-hobbies-tastes, that makes us unique. Like standalone worlds. But since the rise of the "memes" in 2008-2010, we've come to realize that we can relate to a lot of them and that our thoughts and the way we react to different situations are not that much different and unique... So instead of taking the humbleness path, we make fun of it and demonize it through laughter. It's the same dynamic at recess, where early on, the official school bully will choose this year's scapegoat/punching bag and all the other kids who are usually nice and respectul end up making fun of him/her because it is a way to shield themselves and make sure the troubles won't focus on them. We like to spit on the NPC because spiting on it makes us feel like we have nothing to do with it. It's just the zeitgeist scarecrow that keeps us from looking inside and seeing unpleasant truths about ourselves.
It is also a way of thinking born from the old world, where if someone was winning, that meant you were losing. So you have to make fun of the NPC, because if you dont... What does that say about you ?
"Namely, try to focus on what you actually do rather than what you claim you are. Action precedes identity ".
I think this is the most important part of the article. As Goethe said in a famous quote (yeah, I'm quoting Goethe, see I'm not a normie), "How shall we learn to know ourselves? By reflection? Never; but only through action". And in our social media age, we're often more concerned in spending our energy trying to create our image, rather than creating things and deeds that will tell this image themselves. I feel like most people define themselves through elimination: "If I am not X, and I don't like Y, that must mean I'm Z". And the NPC meme is probably the easiest and lowest common denominator available. But the issue in defining ourselves through elimination is that we'll only just be some form of reaction to something else. There will never be true creativity and originality, since our frame of definition is tied to someone else's (and a negative one !).
Last thing: you'll always be someone or something's NPC. Yeah, you may have a peculiar taste in bluegrass jazz, but are you sure that you're not an NPC within that specific frame of reference? You can see it in specialized internet forums where some members often lash out at each others telling themselves they don't have any originality, imagination, that they only like popular/mundane stuff... while still being within the 5%ish passionate enough to writes hundreds of post on a very specialized subject... The war againt the NPC is simply a war that cannot be won. So we'd better start applying some of the Dr. Bevan's prescriptions. Our future self will probably thank us... Or make memes about our old self.
Great comment - loved this in particular "But the issue in defining ourselves through elimination is that we'll only just be some form of reaction to something else. There will never be true creativity and originality, since our frame of definition is tied to someone else's (and a negative one !)."
That's just beautifully put, and absolutely true.
Completely agree about always being someone or something's NP. Sure you can try and have a handful of niche interests, and be an extremely specific expert in all of those (and why not try if it's something you really enjoy?), but if it's to the detriment of everything else - i.e. if I am not an expert or on the way there, then I'm not interested - it's probably a bad idea.
I think those that attempt something like that just find it very difficult to relate to 'normal' people in any way. I personally keep tabs on popular tv shows (don't watch them), multiple sports, and general pop culture trends, without it really taking up any mental bandwidth.
I've got no stock in it, no skin in the game, but it helps me to talk to more people, rather than if I refused to acknowledge everything outside of pre-renaissnace books, french cuisine, and pole fishing, I would probably have a difficult time of it - and most people would think I'm a gobshite anyway.
There's a story about Oscar Wilde that I read years ago which always stuck out to me, from when he went to America. He found himself, this gay, eloquent, flamboyantly dressed man in bars with miners, and they took to him immediately and he to them. Laughing and drinking in the pub, a man they should by all means have hated had become a friend.
Embellished or not, it's always stood out to me as a reminder not to see yourself as above someone, simply because of a disparity in education and a different set of experiences in life. We're all human at the end of the day right?
I hear the phrase ‘sovereign individuals’ banded about a lot. I guess it’s one of those things in the intellectual zeitgeist that has passed me by. As it very common.
As to your excellent comment there is a newsletter on gatekeeping that is begging to be written which if nothing else will prove to be entertaining as I struggle to not descend into the absurdity of gatekeeping the idea of gatekeeping.
But yeah, as you dig further and further into special interests and niches you discover that everyone is an NPC ultimately. Which is freeing. Accepting your ordinariness is the key to becoming extraordinary. Everything ultimately descends into paradox.
It’s a very, very easy trap to fall into. In an attention economy participation is encouraged above all else (‘all news is good news’ ‘my haters are just making me more famous’ etc).
Refusing to critique nonsense on its own terms is a big part of the solution, but of course it brings *us* no attention and so this tactic is rarely utilised. And if it were you wouldn’t notice until it reached a critical mass- I.e a certain outlets click bait articles all received so little engagement that they finally decide to change tact.
This is what I hope the future will start to bring.
Most who criticize NPCs are just doing that; commenting and criticizing. Which is ironically the most NPC thing to do...
That kind of points towards rightful skepticism, or instead of being a centrist or a radical idealist, maybe judge each side with rigor? The ability to choose yes vs no is the ultimate key to be free. "Ideological Turing Test" comes to mind.
Indeed.