Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

aeon web write ups feel like an attempt to be super-informative which just .. misses. They always seem to riff on things making a HUGE DEAL about THIS ONE THING which the authors feel WE ALL MISSED and I feel like I am watching a 1960s movie of stoned people.. grooving on the pattern the coffee cup makes on their hand, man.. its all one hole man.. one hole, the hole is not the cup, the hole is .. the HANDLE..

is it just me? Am I really too "thick" for what aeon is trying to say?

I hate this. I hate being critical of people doing long reads, but I think of the family of long reads, Aeon is about the worst example.

Jarrod Lanier. Jarod Diamond. Ray Kurzeweil. Rent-a-quote new-age theorists trying to be a psychopomp for the modern age, or philosophers but as self-taught, auto-didact philosophers they didn't learn how to do it very well.. And it shows.

The two line take-away is: care less about material things. Gee.. nobody said that before, 2000+ years ago. Did they?

(I should speak. I can't write for toffee either, but the point is I don't put it out there on Aeon)

It isn't just you, the article reads almost exactly like something i'd have conjured up at 15 years old.

It sounds to me like it is designed to massage the egos of disaffected under achievers to make them feel that they might be special; that the day to day humdrum is a result of a war against their special, now dampened, genius. In a world where the masses want to identify as mentally ill and where psychiatrists expand the definition of aberrant mental constructions and outward behaviours it is hardly surprising this might sell some books.

I doubt this book has much to add over Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow et al.

I wouldn't put this on the same level as an increase in mental illness cases in recent times. The scientists making those definitions know what they're doing. This article seems to just be... rambling, I guess?

I identify as hypersane (though I've been using the term hypernormal for a few years).

It's hard to put into words because it's a very personal shift from society. Everyone I've met who is like this has got their own path, approaches life differently, and seems to have shed some unique subset of society, while still carrying some of humanity's codependent ways.

To me, rhe article seemed to be trying to introduce a new idea to the mainstream without a clear grasp on what the idea is. I imagine the author either isn't hypersane and/or doesn't have many collaborators looking at the subject.

> I identify as hypersane (though I've been using the term hypernormal for a few years).

I'm sorry, but this is self indulgence on a new near psychopathic level.

Would you be willing to go into more detail as to what you mean?

And to clarify, I refer to it as hypernormal because I'm making perfectly normal choices others wouldn't today, but might in the future.

Example: I choose to abandon my taste preferences around things. Since doing this on accident, I enjoy everything I eat, drink, and listen to.

Most people I've talked to about this (everyone except for 1-5 people) have no desire to even try doing it. I have no idea why, but people seem really attached to their preferences.

And yet having such strong preferences limits aspects of the world one can enjoy. I suspect strong preferences is cultural programming gone amok, so I'm raising my child while only asking what their experience is like, instead of asking if they like or dislike something.

Being hypernormal here means choosing to allow myself to experience more things. I think it'll be normal to do these things in the future, but it's non-normative right now, so it's hypernormal compared to current times. Hypernormalcy is going to look weird compared to the status quo, by definition.

I'm sorry, but this is just silly

> The two line take-away is: care less about material things. Gee.. nobody said that before, 2000+ years ago. Did they?

Yes, seriously, how is this news? Every single spiritual teacher, every religion, even every motivational coach will tell you this in the first hours of their teachings. How is this new?

Yes, it takes time to integrate it, it is not enough to just read about but what the article is going to integrate it for me? It is just more reading. There are thousands of readily available sources for this "profound truth", it is literally everywhere.

"Everyone says so" is not sufficient justification to accept something as true. It does indicate that there may be something to be investigated, but I personally can't even begin to believe stuff like this on someone's word alone. Even if it's everyone on Earth but me.

It might be that it's beneficial to "care less about material things", but what does that even mean? I can't just randomly decide how much I care and don't care about something, so what can be done to actually effect that change? What is the mechanism by which it improves my life?

> I can't just randomly decide how much I care and don't care about something, so what can be done to actually effect that change?

You absolutely can. There are many ways to do it. (to change how much you attribute your inner value to something like material success, how you view it in your inner world.)

If you feel like you have tried and you can't change a life outlook like that, it is likely that there are other aspects of your mind and psyche that are stopping you like a hidden fear, a childhood trauma, other beliefs that you need to investigate first before you can change this one, you might need more experience before you even become aware of this part of your consciousness, etc. Any good spiritual teacher or psychologist or therapist can help with this. There are clear reliable effective ways and techniques to do this.

If you don't see the point in doing it, or don't even understand what it is that you would likely change, it means you are not ready to tackle this part of your consciousness at all, it means you are working out other parts right now that need to be done first. But then it is not really a problem either, is it?

The mind and its outlook is like any other aspect of human nature and the body in that it takes repeated practice/exercise/etc. for improvement. This is one purported reason why those that attend weekly religious service have higher levels of life satisfaction, i.e. being told weekly to contemplate these things exercises the mind and improves life quality (on average).

I don't think Jared Diamond belongs on your list of "rent-a-quote new-age theorists"

He got a pretty hearty serve for his last book in the reviews I read. Guns, germs & steel was long time ago now.

One weak book doesn't make the man into a Kurzweil

GGS has itself been served repeatedly since its publishing, it’s not at all taken seriously.

Well, if someone is taking Jung and Freud seriously, not really understanding him/her should be an average reaction. Not paying attention should be the hypersane (or, you know, rational and mysentropic) reaction, and believing the writing the insane/irrationnal reaction.

That said Jung made some philosophical points, so you can't reject everything he wrote. But it's not enough to take him seriously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com