▲ 83 points
back
35 comments
important idea. a theme in these is they are variations on story forms that break the fourth wall. where literary fiction breathed life into characters and gave words to essential human experiences, the horror in these stories feels like iterating on a kind of transmissible schizophrenia, not unlike the meme virus in Snowcrash. we're into version 4.x or more of this, where the doubts about the real shown by AI are the effect earlier discoveries about the consequences of a "hyperreal" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality).
decades ago those cultural studies people (who now run our institutions) were on to more than we knew. they were reasoning about how to operate in a world that disconnected from a shared Real. we can see these weird fictions as the artifacts of devices operating on todays fragmented, narrative driven realities. i'd call it post-nihilism, where culturally we're downstream of a great unmooring and in an all against all struggle for narrative dominance with no safety in a base reality or truth. the weird fiction devices are patterns of reframing, analogous to exploits for injecting cognitive associations (or dissociations) to align other minds. It's like in the "wet cement" stage of a news event where everyone crowds in to establish the dominant meme first for their "side."
I don't indulge in these stories because I read most of PKD's "Exegesis" and it is among the works you hear about from people who shortly thereafter break down completely. I've met more than one person muttering about Jung's red book and Kripke's theories of truth, PKD's exegesis, evola, and junger, before disappearing into rehab or homelessness. some ideas are just not healthy recreation, and what they all have in common is a meme complex that causes people to dissociate with all the zeal of a religious conversion but imbued with existential horror. in short, avoid.
these weird fictions should be studied, but mainly to innoculate people to them, as what we know from LLM's is that we can now produce complete ideologies the way we used to write pop songs, where the hooks are now reframings, and if you can't explicitly source a belief from a first hand experience, it could be the artifact of one so be on guard. we may actually need to form an anti-memetics division.
This comment is itself a fine example of the form, a twist on the King in Yellow, or Necronomicon, a story about a text which contains knowledge so alien or antithetical to humanity that just reading it is enough to fracture the mind of the reader and leave them unfit for society with their fellow man
It could even set some wacko off on a path along these lines. Imagine PKD armed with ChatGPT.
I, too, have noticed that paranoid people all tend to read the same books in their downward spiral into paranoia.
That's correct. We are progressing (regressing?) beyond scientific realism and the notion that we are all subjective minds apprehending a base shared reality towards an essentially magical worldview in which reality is mediated by group consensual hallucination. To the extent that "the world" (or at least our apprehension of it) is contained within our mind, it is malleable and subject to manipulation by it in a Hermetic top-down sense of "as above, so below;" the exercise of mental willpower over physical reality. All that is required is to alter one's paradigm or interpretation of reality, and then subscribe as many other minds as possible into the new narrative model; this is what Robert Anton Wilson spoke of in Prometheus Rising when discussing the concept of "reality tunnels:"
"Reality" is the temporary resultant of continuous struggles between rival
gangs of programmers. When a paradigm shift occurs—when we go from seeing
things one way to seeing them another way—the whole world is remade. All
that we "know" is what registers on our brains, so what you perceive (your
individual reality-tunnel) is made up of nothing but thoughts—as Sir
Humphrey Davy noted when self- experimenting with nitrous oxide in 1819,
and as Buddha noticed by sitting alone until all his social imprints
atrophied and dropped away.
Rejecting the notion that knowledge is purely empirical and cumulative,
Gergen has argued that “truth” is always value laden and, therefore
(drawing from critical theory), “reality” is not immutable, but always is
understood via interpre- tation. More attention, then, should be given to
the outcomes implied by any given assertion of reality, rather than to its
“accuracy” as measured by its supposed correspondence to absolute truth.
Memetic hazards can be real and strong, and you best not delve too deeply.
One of those memetic hazards is the meme that such memetic hazards do not exist. In infects politics to an alarming degree.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone (outside of the first two years of college or so) deny that there are writings that are either outright dangerous, or at least need some context in order to be consumed safely.
> I don't think I've ever heard anyone
I don't think I could go two weeks of listening to popular discourse on politics without hearing it. It usually occurs right after one side pretends rebut the other side's arguments sincerely, rather than the usual name-calling and other monkey things. I could name numerous examples, but I don't think that would abide the rules here.
If we did live in a world where people readily acknowledged that ideas were occasionally (or even more often than that) dangerous, we'd be much less welcoming of changes to status quos.
> there are writings that are either outright dangerous, or at least need some context in order to be consumed safely
Can you name three?
In the real world, I can't think of any writing that was/is dangerous on its own. There are some texts people colloquially accuse of having historically caused trouble - Mein Kampf comes to mind - but those were arguably just nucleation sites, themselves little but random objects around which preexisting moods and sentiments crystallized.
(I specifically don't want to say "catalyst", because that would imply the writing had to be very specific to the reaction its introduction caused. Nucleation, in contrast, can be trigger by whatever random impurity that happened to be the right size.)
I mean, the continued existence of the Internet kind of disproves the idea of outright dangerous texts.
There are some ideas that if seriously considered can leave many people with radical doubts about the nature of reality, which is dangerous to ones functioning as a normally conditioned human in society. You can acquire ideas by reading, thus, writings can be dangerous.
Of course, social conformity as the criteria for mental health means that existential texts and socially activist texts are both rightly categorized as hazards to the status quo, meaning that repression of ideas will repress both good and bad writings. Liberation theology is in this way as dangerous an idea as brain in a vat radical skepticism or whatever the hell wittgenstein was on about.
>> i've met more than one person muttering about Jung's red book and Kripke's theories of truth, PKD's exegesis, evola, and junger, before disappearing into rehab or homelessness. some ideas are just not healthy recreation, and what they all have in common is a meme complex that causes people to dissociate with all the zeal of a religious conversion but imbued with existential horror. in short, avoid.
> Can you name three?
the parent comment by motohagiography gives 3 examples, quoted above.
i'm not well-informed enough to agree or disagree with motohagiography, but i am interested in your analysis, if that's why you want examples.
> Can you name three?
Personally, without reading the rest of your comment - because I glimpsed one title that makes the list - these are the things I would tell my child not to read without talking to us first:
- Main Kampf
- Just about anything by Ayn Rand
- This one is a bit of a cop-out because it's very generic, but certain online message boards & Facebook groups. When they're old enough to start browsing on their own - which is probably now, come to think of it - I want to make sure they don't start reading something that reads vaguely plausible on the surface, but quickly plummets into weird racist/fascist rhetoric.
> I mean, the continued existence of the Internet kind of disproves the idea of outright dangerous texts.
I don't think it does, and I would argue that anti-COVID, anti-global-warming, and the other radicalization stuff online is a point to me. Nucleation is a good analogy, I guess, but some people are impressionable enough that they'll glom onto something that'll glow like a horrible pearl in their mind until they think that tampons in the boys' bathroom means that China is, uh, I don't know, turning the frogs gay with Bill Gates' vaccines? I'd wager almost everyone here can personally name one relative who's effectively lost their grip on factual reality in the past five years.
This itself is plausibly a memetic hazard.
The memeplex stands alone.
You can't disprove radical skepticism, but you can take the Moorian shift and look at your hands, believe that they exist, and thus disprove radical skepticism well enough to get on with life.
This itself, as a response to the above, is plausibly a memetic hazard.
I tried reading VALIS and ended up in an existential panic for a few months. Didnt help Iw as binging amphetamines, but yeah, PKD can really fuck with your head
> I've met more than one person muttering about Jung's red book and Kripke's theories of truth, PKD's exegesis, evola, and junger, before disappearing into rehab or homelessness.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Also, I'm pretty sure that Youtube is 1000x more dangerous for mentally unstable people than a book by C.G.Jung.
Side note: the Red Book is truely astonishing. I saw the original at an exhibition in Zürich. A friend owns one of the faksimiles (he also owns a house and has never been to rehab :) I can also recommend Jung's autobiography "Erinnerungen, Träume, Gedanken"
> creative work that presents itself as journalism or nonfiction but introduces fictional elements with the intention of upsetting, disturbing, or confusing the audience.
A good time to mention the SCP wiki and some types of analog horror. It was this kind of thing that led me to discover "hard science fiction" which is distinct but related to the previous two.
I think i enjoy hard sci-fi, if my username is any indication of the genre - it's from "A Signal Shattered" by Eric S. Nylund.
However i am curious what sort of Sci-fi you meant, where it's plausible but there's SCP/analog horror elements. Evidently a prior comment in the thread about memetics wiped an edge on the graph that would let me infer the sorts of thing you're talking about.
> it's from "A Signal Shattered" by Eric S. Nylund.
What a great book. I read it before I read the book that it's a sequel to. Maybe I'll re-read them this week.
it doesn't have to make you insecure
I was hoping for an article about actual weird non-fiction or "creative nonfiction", unfortunately the author focuses on fiction pretending to be nonfiction which at the end of the day, is still fiction. His label of what he calls "weird nonfiction" is seriously misused here.
> They read as if written by a ghost. It is almost impossible to spot the lie in Sebald. One of his final essays, “Campo Santo,” (2003) makes an unlikely pivot in its final moments to speak of the modern world, meditating on the place of the dead in an increasingly crowded physical world
There's this older Japanese horror movie, Pulse, which would have fit perfectly - it's about a world where hell is full and the dead 'invade' living spaces via the internet. But it's not a traditional horror movie, the invasion can also be a stain in the dark that slowly grows, until the human is swallowed up. It's weirdly meditative and melancholic, in the context of OP it's a weird documentary about how the internet invades real spaces.
>I call it weird nonfiction: creative work that presents itself as journalism or nonfiction but introduces fictional elements with the intention of upsetting, disturbing, or confusing the audience.
By this definition, Blair Witch Project seems to fit. Is that right? The examples given in the article seem to indicate a different intention or tone.
This tripped me up too until point 3 in the piece:
> If you are wondering whether or not something counts as weird nonfiction, consider its weirdness. Modern mockumentaries do not work because there is no uncertainty; the documentary element is used to advance the plot, mug at the camera, key the viewer in.
I read this as: non-fiction elements in service of advancing the plot is a strike against.
Really, "weird nonfiction" is whatever the author wants it to be. The examples are a total grab bag IMHO.
Nothing else to add except this was an exceptionally well written piece.
It really wasn’t. It was the kind of writing you get when someone desperately wants to be deep and profound, but lacks the skills to pull it off.
Am I wrong for thinking this is a silly name? If it's fictional then by definition it is not Nonfiction. It certainly is weird.
"Weird nonfiction" is a weird name for it, because it still pretends it's nonfiction. I'd rather call it in a more distinct and weird way, say, "ficnontion".
I like your new word. It is both eloquent and awkward simultaneously. I call this quality awkloquent.
Then there's also autofiction, which sort of fits some of the examples given in the essay, even if not literary.
He also mentions “creative nonfiction”.
did he tell you to read his work before it was finished?