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

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

The Early Death of Any Future Peace: