Rinzai Roasts the Roasters: MauLer. [I.]
"I'll admit: I wanted to support this video. I wanted to support this channel. I have always liked your calm, collected feedback when you worked in groups with Gary, Drinker, AZ, etc. I should have noticed, though, that my approval of your commentary was proportional to just how many people you had shared a stage with. As a group, your Fellowship produces very moving content which inspires hope in people all over the globe. However, that is not your personal agenda, and I see that now.
Don't get me wrong: I too would
love to find a critic who could formulate a system which would work for making
Art effectively. Yet as I see this wish reflected in your rant, I cannot help
but to consider, maybe to conclude, that it's a Faustian temptation. Lived
experience within the World requires people to be practical, emotionally
self-aware, and open to diverse perspectives. This is why a group or team is
often quintessential to success in an artistic enterprise, including solo
efforts.
Contradictions will arise in any
conversation that attempts at any kind of depth, and some of them remain a
paradox. Consistency is not a principle the Universe adheres to; it's a
principle that *people* would adhere to, and they tend to do so only when
they're at their moral best. Yet a consistency, as C.S. Lewis pointed out
(ham-fistedly, I'll grant) can be a symptom of a "little mind".
I will admit: you lost me almost
forty minutes in the moment that I saw that "confirmation bias"
graph. I cannot tell you just how sick I am of seeing it. It isn't new as an
idea; it's not good as an idea. I have not believed in it in years. I could go
on as long as you have about why just that ridiculous conception is the bane of
any artist, critic, or philosopher.
Why bother, though? The fact you
even bring it up as "fact" reflects a bias on your own part of the
very nature that the concept seeks to illustrate, though it can only make that
illustration of itself and those who use it. Just like
"subjectivity", admittedly annoying as a preface, (even Drinker used
it prior to his rise to power) is insidious in throwing off, deterring
criticism by denying any common ground, so "confirmation bias" can be
used to say, "It doesn't matter if your point of view has evidence, since
that is just your biased point of view."
How can you cringe at one and not
the other? You admit that people filter out all information which won't serve
their narrative. So, how can making the *assumption* that a feeling isn't fact,
or that consistency should be employed to measure quality, or that a narrative
should not exclude opposing evidence (despite this being inconsistency) not be
as "biased"?
Confirmation is one of the reasons
that we *make* great Art; it is supposed to reinforce and edify the aspects of
the real-life *social* narrative the work is meant to represent. Only a fool
does not see patterns. In an argument, I only have to represent my side; it's
up to *you* to either prove me wrong or to accept defeat. I'm not going to
waste my time, then, deconstructing my *own* argument in search of
inconsistencies. That is the job of my *opponent,* who is, after all, just
trying to present a point of view which *he* believes to be superior in quality
to mine.
If stories do derive their quality
from their consistency, then so must arguments and ways of life; the story
serves no purpose otherwise. If you were forced to listen to each video of
every critic who commits the fallacy you illustrate, in search of evidence to
prove you wrong, you wouldn't find it. Why? Because you haven't *changed your
method.* You're relying on a dictionary definition of "objective" and
some pop psychology that people are too shallow to discredit. Showing no
consideration for the feelings of the Other, you preclude all possibility of
changing as a person in some way which can enable you to see things through the
lens of someone else’s episteme. The arguments against your episteme are far
too numerous to list, and yet you preach it as the *definition* of objective
criticism. It's redundant, it's indulgent, it is arrogant and condescending,
and *it bites its own critique.* It's not "illogical", but it's the
opposite extreme, and it explains why on the database of personality you have
100% votes insisting you're a Thinking rather than a Feeling *type.*
The criticisms that I have of you
were summarized by Kierkegaard of Hegel back in 1846. It's much too systematic,
much too rigid, much too stubborn and too bitter, and it lacks the fluid,
playful nature of your critics which endears their viewers to them. None of
this can be conducive to Good Art. You, too, depend on people who were trying
to appeal to the affective side of human nature in their Art and content. You
can't brush that off as unimportant in its moral, social implications. It is bad
philosophy and poor psychology, and "criticism" cannot be confined to
such a turgid set of limitations, lest it be immune to criticism in its turn.
People avoid you not because they are afraid of being proven wrong, but rather
since they don't believe that *you'll* be proven wrong, since clearly you
*cannot* be proven wrong *according to the lens you're always using,* and you
only seem to take it off when there are others who *don't* follow such a
stringent set of rules (don't tell me Gary isn't biased, nor that you would
hold him to the fire for his views) but who appeal to people through their
empathy, their dedication, and their humour.
By the way: regarding facts as
you've defined them, you are *generally* fairly solid. That is not at all the
issue. I would love to see objective criticism make a big return and break
through the subjective barrier. Yet how you plan to do that when you think that
confirmation is a bias I can't fathom. People have an obligation to their
audience; you *know* this. They have obligations to their cultures, their
traditions, and their lore. They have to be consistent with the things they've
said before, especially when they are public figures. Trying to divorce all
"objectivity" from all these sources of emotional involvement is
another safety net (as well as irresponsible). It's just as bad as using
"subjectivity" as though it were synonymous with *pluralism.*
You said it yourself: the villain
tries to *force* agreement, e.g. Anakin. You might think you are only
"being logical", but that's a set of rules you arbitrarily impose
with *great* assumption, and I'm sorry if your critics haven't been intelligent
enough to point that out. At any rate, for what it's worth, I would not point
it out if I was not involved in this affectively. I want you to succeed, and I
am glad that you aspire for these heights. They just seem relatively small
compared to what you *could* accomplish if you re-evaluated your assumptions
about what is Real and what's of Value. None of this is binding *morally;* so
far, it's all aesthetic. Try to factor feelings and morality into your
objectivity, and think of maybe using sources for your definitions other than a
bloody online Dictionary."
**[({R.G.)}]** 🐙
**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**
Comments
Post a Comment