These posts explore the themes developed in my monograph, Narcisso-Fascism, which is itself a real-world test of the central concepts of the Biocognitive Model of Mind for psychiatry.
Niall, thank you for rendering such powerful and compelling prose. You have a great command of references including the historical, and you write with such clarity in your expressions. I'm shocked anew at the state of the world, but as a keen observer I have realised this for decades. I have taken a firm position in both antinatalism and veganism, as well as minimalist living and kindness to all others (that includes fellow humans). It's been said, and I'll say again, that the way we treat our most vulnerable gives us the best indication of our worth as a society. We must bear witness to the terror, and we MUST defend the weakest and support those who do, such as Greta Thunberg sailing on her way to Palestine, risking everything she has. Human life is so fragile and almost all of us are not doing all we can. Sir...I thank you for taking an interest in the most important worldly issues and spreading the awareness where now there is so much darkness.
If you or anyone needs help with taking the first step into veganism, please feel welcome to ask, or seek support on relevant sites such as veganeasy.org . Let's do this!! <3
I still haven't checked out a book-length explication of your biocognitive model -- I will though, it looks intriguing. Regarding refuting the no-free-will argument: at one point Sam Harris and a cluster of other hip worthies were putting out material supporting that hypothesis. I was never convinced, it just seemed voguish nihilism framed as tough-minded realism. A dead duck.
Robert Hughes was a very good writer. I remember him mentioning somewhere that when he was young he was urged to get out of Australia or he'd end up a terminal "village explainer." I don't know whether that's true today. It certainly is in New Zealand.
I wonder what the Australian cultural scene would have been like if the exodus he was part of, along with Barry Humphries, Clive James, and Germaine Greer, would have been like. At least Patrick White and Helen Garner stayed put.
In New Zealand Janet Frame was compelled to blunt her scalpel: as an aberrant female in the sixties, if she had a scathing, outspoken attitude like Dorothy Parker, it would have been back in hospital and the planned lobotomy would have resumed.
Hello, Niall. I first came across you—if I’m not mistaken—in an interview on the Neutrality Studies channel, and since then I have always followed what you write. Geographically, we are almost at opposite ends of the world—I am Portuguese—but in terms of thought, without this implying that I place myself at your level, it would be hard for us to be any closer. I have learned a great deal from you. You have helped me give grounding and substance to ideas that already dwelled within me.
In the case of this text, I would like to put a question to you: you argue that the first step to avoiding a global catastrophe is to break the illusion of civilization, but in saying that “to dominate is human,” are you not also postulating or corroborating a harmful illusion, insofar as it is no less a convention than that of civilization? There are humans who think in terms of harmony and not happiness; there are humans who are happy when they serve, when they feel useful to what surrounds them—and they are no less human for that. So, “to serve is also human.” There are humans who—borrowing here an image from a Nigerian philosopher—understand their nervous system as being connected to rivers, trees, mountains, to the past and to the future; that is, who do not feel the purpose or the benefit of dominating what naturally nourishes, provides, and constitutes them.
Isn’t breaking the illusion of the “human” concept also a first step, concomitant with what you propose, towards avoiding a global catastrophe? Wouldn’t what is needed, in the end, be a paso doble?
Niall, thank you for rendering such powerful and compelling prose. You have a great command of references including the historical, and you write with such clarity in your expressions. I'm shocked anew at the state of the world, but as a keen observer I have realised this for decades. I have taken a firm position in both antinatalism and veganism, as well as minimalist living and kindness to all others (that includes fellow humans). It's been said, and I'll say again, that the way we treat our most vulnerable gives us the best indication of our worth as a society. We must bear witness to the terror, and we MUST defend the weakest and support those who do, such as Greta Thunberg sailing on her way to Palestine, risking everything she has. Human life is so fragile and almost all of us are not doing all we can. Sir...I thank you for taking an interest in the most important worldly issues and spreading the awareness where now there is so much darkness.
If you or anyone needs help with taking the first step into veganism, please feel welcome to ask, or seek support on relevant sites such as veganeasy.org . Let's do this!! <3
I still haven't checked out a book-length explication of your biocognitive model -- I will though, it looks intriguing. Regarding refuting the no-free-will argument: at one point Sam Harris and a cluster of other hip worthies were putting out material supporting that hypothesis. I was never convinced, it just seemed voguish nihilism framed as tough-minded realism. A dead duck.
Robert Hughes was a very good writer. I remember him mentioning somewhere that when he was young he was urged to get out of Australia or he'd end up a terminal "village explainer." I don't know whether that's true today. It certainly is in New Zealand.
I wonder what the Australian cultural scene would have been like if the exodus he was part of, along with Barry Humphries, Clive James, and Germaine Greer, would have been like. At least Patrick White and Helen Garner stayed put.
In New Zealand Janet Frame was compelled to blunt her scalpel: as an aberrant female in the sixties, if she had a scathing, outspoken attitude like Dorothy Parker, it would have been back in hospital and the planned lobotomy would have resumed.
Hello, Niall. I first came across you—if I’m not mistaken—in an interview on the Neutrality Studies channel, and since then I have always followed what you write. Geographically, we are almost at opposite ends of the world—I am Portuguese—but in terms of thought, without this implying that I place myself at your level, it would be hard for us to be any closer. I have learned a great deal from you. You have helped me give grounding and substance to ideas that already dwelled within me.
In the case of this text, I would like to put a question to you: you argue that the first step to avoiding a global catastrophe is to break the illusion of civilization, but in saying that “to dominate is human,” are you not also postulating or corroborating a harmful illusion, insofar as it is no less a convention than that of civilization? There are humans who think in terms of harmony and not happiness; there are humans who are happy when they serve, when they feel useful to what surrounds them—and they are no less human for that. So, “to serve is also human.” There are humans who—borrowing here an image from a Nigerian philosopher—understand their nervous system as being connected to rivers, trees, mountains, to the past and to the future; that is, who do not feel the purpose or the benefit of dominating what naturally nourishes, provides, and constitutes them.
Isn’t breaking the illusion of the “human” concept also a first step, concomitant with what you propose, towards avoiding a global catastrophe? Wouldn’t what is needed, in the end, be a paso doble?
Good question, will respond today.