To expand on my previous post, the hugbox inclination permeates the mind of the egoic seeker; adoring the safe space of studious self-absorption, an ignoble form of isolation masquerading as a homage to the Athenian ideal, but curiously failing to venerate her more confrontational attributes.
Manifestations of this sacrificial act are found on Twitter among used insight salesmen that grandstand with allusions to the ancients (“library of Alexandria in your pocket”). In proffering their repugnant mimesis the individual is devolved and with it the intrinsic achievement, abolished into a mere collection of notions, prostituting wisdom for the most likes. As Oscar Wilde said, “everything popular is wrong”.
These salesmen scream caveat emptor in the subtext of their meditations but the cries go unheard as their product is the most nefarious of all, the idea that you are a mule, a courier for thought. Neglecting the “social” in social media and ignoring that debate is one of the oldest sources of wisdom, their folly inadvertently recommends a surrendering to ideation and in doing so, overriding the qualities that are singular and distinct.
A devotion to the nature of thought removes the impetus behind it, since the definition of wisdom hinges on experiential implications. Jim Carrey eventually concluded there is no Jim Carrey to free himself of responsibility, not to transcend it. Carrey sought to rationalise the manifestation of his whims, complete with e-philosopher beard.
If man were reduced to the content of his thought, we would have no need for limited paradigms. The counterbalance to ideation is the grounding connections between the nodes of thought – this grounding cannot be conceptual, or it would have no potential for utterance or human output in the first instance, there would be no link to the mouthpiece.
The brilliance of the ideational scientist Richard Feynman was arguably in his personification of natural laws and concepts (as pertaining to mathematics and science). The subjective at its paragon grants a relatability that one can seldom find in ostensibly self-effacing actors.
The audience is held in a form of reverent stasis, following more out of obligation since everyone else is, with little to veritably associate with themselves. Bad actors depende on their explicit focus on presold wisdom and the audience becomes emotionally invested in the concept of ‘value’ once they are hooked, as absent a relationship, they are compelled to defend logic in isolation.
YouTuber zefrank commented on an Invocation for Beginnings that perfectionism “may look good in his shiny shoes but he’s a little bit of an asshole and nobody invites him to his pool parties”. In doing so, he espoused a certain realism in presentation despite being an ideational sort. This we might argue is similar to a recurrent and timeless principle of film-making – the audience needs a theme to relate to, that is applicable in their own lives, otherwise the narrative seems alien.
Twitter philosophers are extremely popular as they affect an ideal: the image of perfection. WIth that, they are often defended to the hilt by those that operate in similar delusions, perhaps with aspirational bios or famous figures for profile pictures. Yet that ideal does not conform to reality – these people are often indulging the derivative tendency of those that place ideation above creation. They are for conception, but not its output.
There is no risk involved in dedicating oneself to knowledge, there is no person to be rejected, especially if one focuses on ‘wisdom’ ensconced within well-trodden soundbites (did you know that curious people learn more?). The authors of digestible ideation are like postmodernist academics that bury themselves in social theory only to become postgraduate teachers, never leaving the bubble of academia (see the to-be Oxford fellow that interviewed Jordan Peterson).
The worst claim to be original, but affect to be something from the past. Gutless cowardice should not be encouraged, but in a world where image is semper primus, affectation rules. It’s upto you whether you take the hard path or take the cheap and easy route. Know that the more someone is self-honorific, the more likely they are a sham.
If you want to be as unflappable, it’s a simple decision.