Why they killed the media monoculture
. I don't really see Paul Skallas as more than an amusing read, but sometimes he says things that do have some poignancy. For context, he talks about this idea of a "media monoculture". People used to mostly read the same books, newspapers, watch the same tv shows, listen to the same music. People would talk around the water cooler about last night's episode of Seinfeld, or the baseball game. You don't really see that much anymore, etc.

After having a two hour long socratic dialogue in my head at 2 a.m. I realized something. I was trying to explain to this imaginary person why I would be reticent to say I would prefer a midwife for the delivery of my child, were I to have one. We live in a world that is disordered and does not follow the natural law, it's a crime to say that "women understand childbirth" because we live in the aforementioned disordered world where apparently men can get pregnant. I don't think that's true, but a lot of people seem to and the media seems to back them up. Regardless of it's objective truth, the words, the "lie" carries power with it.

However, you can't say to someone "X is something I believe/is the way it is because of the Natural Law." You would have to explain to them how the universe itself operates on a set of fundamental and reproducible principles. You would have to explain to them how there are no cultures without some form of marriage practice. You would have to explain to them that in light of both those things, one could (even from a secular view) say that with the same environment and pressures two amino acids would "evolve" into humans with these inherent things that happen across cultures (Marriage, gender roles, incest taboos, capacity to make music/dance, etc.).

This is for the same reason that "What's the deal with airline food" would mean nothing to a Mongolian steppe nomad or an uncontacted amazon tribe. Much like how ZHP talks about how pidgin languages lose articulative power, much of the things we say (or at least did say) rely upon shared a cultural context. As we move further into the future, older works become more and more obtuse to normies. This is not just due to an overall decline in reading levels and "haha le hecking big words scare me XD!!!", but because until relatively recently the field of literature was built upon a canon. For the West, the "base" of this canon was primarily the Bible and the Greek/Roman Epics. With the footnoting one can observe in better reprints, a lot of books were written for an audience living in a broader and deeper "media monoculture".

Where am I going with this? Why does this matter?

The destruction of the intellectual foundations/shared reference points/objectivity of culture and society is the intellectual equivalent of the Dutch flooding the lowlands. We now live in a post-truth society and any debate, even between two parties acting in good faith, is going to (and will for the sake of honesty) have to devolve into a legalistic semantics definition-off before any debate can actually occur. Everything for normgroids runs on "vibes" now because the ground has become so muddy, the most rock solid of ideas can be undermined simply by the fact that, Alah forgive me, "What is a woman?" is a genuine point of contention in the public sphere.
[Image: a42xva.jpg]
First, very funny Guest. Hopefully he doesn't delete the thread.

Now, this thread really shouldn't be saying it's about "monoculture". What's meant seems to be something more like the continuity of classical or serious intellectual culture, which then is projected outwards onto everyone in the past more than it actually applied.

When you say media monoculture you mean something more like the true general western cultural continuity which really was shared by everyone to some extent, but you seem to be conflating old just so "is what it is and only can be" limitedness of small peoples with the depth and breadth of knowledge of the true canon of the intellectual and cultured classes. What exactly was killed by who and how, and what did we just lose? It was some combination of many things, what's important is that all of that has passed. We don't necessarily need to dwell on it if you don't care to. Not something I came here to fight over.

Does being post-truth matter? These people who say men can get pregnant (do they even?), what is their problem in relation to culture? Should they be peasants utterly incapable of thinking anything is more than a received idea? Or should they be so steeped in a rich inheritance of what their ancestors felt and thought that they wouldn't want to change despite being aware that what we make of the world is not set in stone? Is this all that people were until 2014?

Destruction of shared reference points doesn't have any inherently disastrous consequences I don't believe. Reality doesn't actually decay into slush I don't believe. This Trans Business is not a result of semantic decay. It's a niche identity subculture with absurd political backing and an expansionist agenda. People don't start wearing pants on their heads because Rene Descartes and/or The Cultural Marxists undermined faith in the idea that you have to believe what your grand grandparents did forever just because you do.

Beyond this point of contention, I have some general thoughts on culture.

I think we are actually on track to recanonise. Mass culture is a swamp and is degenerating into a pidgin culture of gibberish. Everyone with taste is self-segregating, and not really in a confusing or eclectic fashion. Yes, people are into exploring decades old media. But mostly the same stuff. Everyone is not becoming a deranged scholar of obscure minutiae of the past. It's more like sane people excusing themselves from the zoo and collectively choosing what a sane culture would from our recent and older history and living with that media tradition as a background. You really can just about split our current "culture" into two on this point I believe.

There's pretty much a monoculture of stuff people who aren't ZOGbeamed normalfags (basically all normal means now) will generally be familiar with. If I get certain signals from a guy I can be pretty sure he knows who Mishima, Lovecraft, and Kojima are. And I think this is a trend which is expanding and solidifying. The culture-bearing strain of humanity will all appreciate various things we talk about here and in other vanguard spaces soon. There's only so much decades old stuff out there, and I really do believe it's one broad page. Everyone excusing themselves from funwaa hell is after roughly the same things.

This is more like a discussion of canon now perhaps. But I think your concerns also hold. The same things will more or less go without saying among this new culture bearing class. But at the same time this class will not be fixed. And that will be a good thing.
Perhaps a productive direction for this thread would be exploring the nascent culture Anthony identifies. Not the fraught question of 'how would I load the canon' but rather 'what is the new culture? What do people at different intellectual levels seem to be familiar with?'
I would say that the internet at its top end is structurally superior to the old paper-based noosphere; the speed of argument favours truth, while the relaxation of non-intellectual standards (do you write in justified PEEL paragraphs) means high-IQ can mass-produce clearly superior content and impose its canon more effectively. Hence we might hope for a better canon than we once had. Consider the high status of Stirner, for instance, who as far as I can tell was basically unknown in the Anglosphere ten years ago. A lot of twentieth-century crap seems to have utterly vanished as well.
I'm just so happy that no one will ever, for the rest of human history, have to give their opinion on 'Communism'. これは自由だ。

Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)