Deleted member 4612
mentally crippled by lonely teen years
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Posts
- 21,746
- Reputation
- 43,339
I am sure no one here needs introduction to this term and its general semantic content, ubiquitous in blackpill discussions and even spread further afield online. Certainly the first thing one hears upon disrupting a thread full of paeans to "Chad", or challenging deeply cherished but just as deeply incorrect assumptions about female attraction, is that one is "coping". What I hope to do here is show the vacuous superficiality of this term, how it consequently may be filled out with any set of hidden assumptions, and ultimately how it is used tendentiously to advance certain personal ambitions of which the wielder of the word may or may not be explicitly conscious.
As the first point, the use of this word is often times bound up with the astonishingly flawed and amateurish philosophy of deterministic physicalism. It would seem that partisans of this view, often l'Ookists, take it to be an inextricable feature of any "blackpill" and the only viable theoretical basis for an understanding of reality, reacting confusedly and badly when it is challenged. They are supported in this by the immense cultural industry of Popular Science which would have us believe we are meat machines cobbled together by accident, but that our rational minds are limpid pools in which the outer world is reflected without a trace of distortion and that it is also very important that we all be "decent fucking human fucking be-fucking-ings" by not making generalized demographic judgments (evil). The former point is what I'll focus on for the first part of this post.
When accusing someone of "coping", our l'Ookist assumes that everything about the nature of reality is unproblematic (in the genuine Kantian sense) and that in effect, the empirical world can be understood apodictically. To their minds, the world is a demure maiden and the subjective experience is "CHAD xD"; the former waits, ripe and yielding, ready to throw herself into the arms of her suitor, if only just asked. Reality is constituted exclusively by FACTS, like grapes on the vine, waiting invitingly to be plucked and enjoyed by the observer, who metabolizes them autonomically into THE TRUTH. Seated at this banquet of FACTS, dressed and furnished, all one is supposed to have to do in order to partake is to stop "coping" - if only you stop deceiving yourself with "copes", attempting to soften the blows of pathological displeasure, the veil is lifted from your eyes and your purified reason will immediately assimilate them to THE TRUTH. This is outright stupid for a number of reasons, chief among which is that many people are too intellectually crippled to make even a heuristically useful empirical judgment, a group which naturally includes the people who take a posteriori knowledge to have a priori certainty. Even assuming a bright and clear mind, there is much more standing in the way of their inquiry than "bad feelings", not the least of which is merely life's experiential and temporal delimitation.
This is the sort of teenage "nihilism" that ends up concealing quite a lot of assumptions behind the professed "nothing". I'll refer for instance to Zappfe's "The Last Messiah", which is a more eloquent expression of the same incoherent view: life is nothing but a stream of senseless bewilderments - and you can make perfect sense of this fact just by stripping back "psychological defense mechanisms". In fact, your "goal" in this ostensibly ateleological existence is to become aware that there are no goals. Le Hueman evolved from beast though a series of beneficial mutations only for the purpose of recognizing the "fact" that he is a beast and being maladaptively upset by it.
Psychiatry even works on the assumption that the ‘healthy’ and viable is at one with the highest in personal terms. Depression, ‘fear of life,’ refusal of nourishment and so on are invariably taken as signs of a pathological state and treated thereafter. Often, however, such phenomena are messages from a deeper, more immediate sense of life, bitter fruits of a geniality of thought or feeling at the root of antibiological tendencies. It is not the soul being sick, but its protection failing, or else being rejected because it is experienced – correctly – as a betrayal of ego’s highest potential.
The whole of living that we see before our eyes today is from inmost to outmost enmeshed in repressional mechanisms, social and individual; they can be traced right into the tritest formulas of everyday life. Though they take a vast and multifarious variety of forms, it seems legitimate to at least identify four major kinds, naturally occuring in every possible combination: isolation, anchoring, distraction and sublimation.
[…]
In everyday interaction, isolation is manifested in a general code of mutual silence: primarily toward children, so these are not at once scared senseless by the life they have just begun, but retain their illusions until they can afford to lose them. In return, children are not to bother the adults with untimely reminders of sex, toilet, or death. Among adults there are the rules of ‘tact,’ the mechanism being openly displayed when a man who weeps on the street is removed with police assistance.
Behind such flowery lamentations however, the "nihilist" often hides a few clandestine meanings after all. Often times, they are utilitarians who, on top of it, accept "equality" as a principle of nature that somehow never comes to empirical expression. So we will often be told in a crooked and dissimulating manner that it is "thuper important" that everyone have maximum and equal pleasure units allotted to them, we "fight waycism", etc. We will soon see why and how this is.
Aside from the childish epistemological arrogance of our l'Ookist, there is yet more hidden behind the concept of "coping", the most significant of which is the nearly unavoidable contamination of personal ambition, here concentrated to an especial potency. It does not need to be demonstrated at length how accusations of "coping" seem to be bound up with a sort of masochism and willed self-debasement. This is on one hand related to the common belief that toil necessarily reaps benefits and that knowledge therefore is consecrated by suffering, leading to the asinine but all too common conclusion "the more it hurts me, the more true it is". On one hand, since this view implicitly reigns in a lot of modern shitliberal "intellectualism", its statement in the form of "cope" might on the one hand just be a form of status mimicry. This is not even a quarter of the story though. The reason why this view finds such wide application, the more frequent the closer to organs of official power one goes (many forms of 'virtue signaling' can be described as such), is that it is a vessel disguising a cowardly and dishonest will to power. To quote Nietzsche:
Wer sich erniedrigt, will erhöht werden
There is also a passage from Georges Sorel's 'Reflections on Violence' that has stuck with me on this topic, although it tends a little too closely to a crude sociologically reductive explanation of religious phenomena. I am not able to find it at the moment, but it briefly described ascetics of old amazing spectators with great displays of suffering. By doing so, they were able to legitimize their priestly authority and make clear that they were above worldly concerns.
By making a spectacle of how much one scorns his well-being - physical there, psychological here - l'Ookists would lead us to believe that they, because of the mortifications to which they subject their own characters, could not be acting from any sense of seflish, limited interest and could not but be faithful stewards of the ultimate truth. If this swindle was successful however, their disgrace was a small price to pay for the eminent position they now enjoy; trusted to act selflessly in service of truth, with the attention of their audience pacified in this manner, they are now in the position to determine what exactly truth is. By mocking themselves as "subhueman tru sells xD", they find themselves able to set definitions and values where they actually matter to their own social advantage. This may go some way toward explaining the priesthood of l'Ookism celebrities like FAKEandJBB.
In summary, I seek here to make clear that the almost comic masochism of l'Ookism and the reduction of all experience to a dichotomy of "reality" or "coping" is empty and untenable. In addition, one should be on guard around this rhetoric, as it is often a disguised, inverted even, form of social climbing and status seeking.
@Gunnersup @Proex @TraumatisedOgre @The giga incel @arianaisawesome @Toth's thot @AlwaysHaveQuestions @FallenPrime @ImprovLoser @austrianvirgin @rightfulcel @thehealingfields
As the first point, the use of this word is often times bound up with the astonishingly flawed and amateurish philosophy of deterministic physicalism. It would seem that partisans of this view, often l'Ookists, take it to be an inextricable feature of any "blackpill" and the only viable theoretical basis for an understanding of reality, reacting confusedly and badly when it is challenged. They are supported in this by the immense cultural industry of Popular Science which would have us believe we are meat machines cobbled together by accident, but that our rational minds are limpid pools in which the outer world is reflected without a trace of distortion and that it is also very important that we all be "decent fucking human fucking be-fucking-ings" by not making generalized demographic judgments (evil). The former point is what I'll focus on for the first part of this post.
When accusing someone of "coping", our l'Ookist assumes that everything about the nature of reality is unproblematic (in the genuine Kantian sense) and that in effect, the empirical world can be understood apodictically. To their minds, the world is a demure maiden and the subjective experience is "CHAD xD"; the former waits, ripe and yielding, ready to throw herself into the arms of her suitor, if only just asked. Reality is constituted exclusively by FACTS, like grapes on the vine, waiting invitingly to be plucked and enjoyed by the observer, who metabolizes them autonomically into THE TRUTH. Seated at this banquet of FACTS, dressed and furnished, all one is supposed to have to do in order to partake is to stop "coping" - if only you stop deceiving yourself with "copes", attempting to soften the blows of pathological displeasure, the veil is lifted from your eyes and your purified reason will immediately assimilate them to THE TRUTH. This is outright stupid for a number of reasons, chief among which is that many people are too intellectually crippled to make even a heuristically useful empirical judgment, a group which naturally includes the people who take a posteriori knowledge to have a priori certainty. Even assuming a bright and clear mind, there is much more standing in the way of their inquiry than "bad feelings", not the least of which is merely life's experiential and temporal delimitation.
This is the sort of teenage "nihilism" that ends up concealing quite a lot of assumptions behind the professed "nothing". I'll refer for instance to Zappfe's "The Last Messiah", which is a more eloquent expression of the same incoherent view: life is nothing but a stream of senseless bewilderments - and you can make perfect sense of this fact just by stripping back "psychological defense mechanisms". In fact, your "goal" in this ostensibly ateleological existence is to become aware that there are no goals. Le Hueman evolved from beast though a series of beneficial mutations only for the purpose of recognizing the "fact" that he is a beast and being maladaptively upset by it.
Psychiatry even works on the assumption that the ‘healthy’ and viable is at one with the highest in personal terms. Depression, ‘fear of life,’ refusal of nourishment and so on are invariably taken as signs of a pathological state and treated thereafter. Often, however, such phenomena are messages from a deeper, more immediate sense of life, bitter fruits of a geniality of thought or feeling at the root of antibiological tendencies. It is not the soul being sick, but its protection failing, or else being rejected because it is experienced – correctly – as a betrayal of ego’s highest potential.
The whole of living that we see before our eyes today is from inmost to outmost enmeshed in repressional mechanisms, social and individual; they can be traced right into the tritest formulas of everyday life. Though they take a vast and multifarious variety of forms, it seems legitimate to at least identify four major kinds, naturally occuring in every possible combination: isolation, anchoring, distraction and sublimation.
[…]
In everyday interaction, isolation is manifested in a general code of mutual silence: primarily toward children, so these are not at once scared senseless by the life they have just begun, but retain their illusions until they can afford to lose them. In return, children are not to bother the adults with untimely reminders of sex, toilet, or death. Among adults there are the rules of ‘tact,’ the mechanism being openly displayed when a man who weeps on the street is removed with police assistance.
Behind such flowery lamentations however, the "nihilist" often hides a few clandestine meanings after all. Often times, they are utilitarians who, on top of it, accept "equality" as a principle of nature that somehow never comes to empirical expression. So we will often be told in a crooked and dissimulating manner that it is "thuper important" that everyone have maximum and equal pleasure units allotted to them, we "fight waycism", etc. We will soon see why and how this is.
Aside from the childish epistemological arrogance of our l'Ookist, there is yet more hidden behind the concept of "coping", the most significant of which is the nearly unavoidable contamination of personal ambition, here concentrated to an especial potency. It does not need to be demonstrated at length how accusations of "coping" seem to be bound up with a sort of masochism and willed self-debasement. This is on one hand related to the common belief that toil necessarily reaps benefits and that knowledge therefore is consecrated by suffering, leading to the asinine but all too common conclusion "the more it hurts me, the more true it is". On one hand, since this view implicitly reigns in a lot of modern shitliberal "intellectualism", its statement in the form of "cope" might on the one hand just be a form of status mimicry. This is not even a quarter of the story though. The reason why this view finds such wide application, the more frequent the closer to organs of official power one goes (many forms of 'virtue signaling' can be described as such), is that it is a vessel disguising a cowardly and dishonest will to power. To quote Nietzsche:
Wer sich erniedrigt, will erhöht werden
There is also a passage from Georges Sorel's 'Reflections on Violence' that has stuck with me on this topic, although it tends a little too closely to a crude sociologically reductive explanation of religious phenomena. I am not able to find it at the moment, but it briefly described ascetics of old amazing spectators with great displays of suffering. By doing so, they were able to legitimize their priestly authority and make clear that they were above worldly concerns.
By making a spectacle of how much one scorns his well-being - physical there, psychological here - l'Ookists would lead us to believe that they, because of the mortifications to which they subject their own characters, could not be acting from any sense of seflish, limited interest and could not but be faithful stewards of the ultimate truth. If this swindle was successful however, their disgrace was a small price to pay for the eminent position they now enjoy; trusted to act selflessly in service of truth, with the attention of their audience pacified in this manner, they are now in the position to determine what exactly truth is. By mocking themselves as "subhueman tru sells xD", they find themselves able to set definitions and values where they actually matter to their own social advantage. This may go some way toward explaining the priesthood of l'Ookism celebrities like FAKEandJBB.
In summary, I seek here to make clear that the almost comic masochism of l'Ookism and the reduction of all experience to a dichotomy of "reality" or "coping" is empty and untenable. In addition, one should be on guard around this rhetoric, as it is often a disguised, inverted even, form of social climbing and status seeking.
@Gunnersup @Proex @TraumatisedOgre @The giga incel @arianaisawesome @Toth's thot @AlwaysHaveQuestions @FallenPrime @ImprovLoser @austrianvirgin @rightfulcel @thehealingfields
