Good Taste and Vulgarity

[miss fortune]

I have offered a time honoured psychological explanation of how we damage ourselves individually and socially.

We only have to look around us, even on Typology Central, to see the individual and social damage we inflict.

Such damage is begging for an explanation. And the book, Ressentiment, by Max Scheler, published in 1912, gives us an explanation that is both profound and accurate.

The first step by those in the grip of ressentiment is to trivialise - to trivialise the explanation and to trivialise the individual.

We see unhappiness all around us and we have a deep urge to perpetuate unhappiness, and deeply resist bringing this perverse urge out into the light of evidence and reason.

Unhappiness can be propagated by "high class" as well as by low, and vulgarity does not discourage intellectualism. If we associate portions of ourselves and natural actions with being vulgar or not a topic worth discussing in public discourse because it's not proper, what does that teach us about parts of ourselves and our lives that are a natural part of being human? By suppressing things that are "dirty" we are ignoring problems and seeding shame.

messages like "cover up... someone could see you!" or "nobody wants to hear about that" are given to people all of the time... should we be ashamed that we have bodies? should we be ashamed that we are human? making something vulgar does that

deeming things vulgar or low class is a popular historical means for oppressing those who are different... are you trying to oppress those who are different Mole?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

In response to the OP, I would just caution the use of rigid categories that are embraced or dismissed in their entirety. There is an aspect of high culture, or monied culture that seeks to value taste, but relies on status to determine worth. There is the possibility of depth and artistry occurring within any category of culture or labels. In this way the best judge of quality needs to be discerning, but also open minded enough to see value in new contexts.

Education can play a role in developing "taste", but popular culture teaches us to value its ideals as well. We are all "educated", we all learn from what we encounter, so it's also a lot more complex than just being educated or not. I think it was Tolstoy that compared great art to healthy food. He proposed that it is not an acquired taste, but true art resonates with each of us. It is not the domain of the elite.

There has been an overall dumbing down of culture, so yeah, there is a lot of "vulgar", mindless culture and art out there that is embraced like a big, squishy, greasy, pile of french fries and other food-like substances.

 

[Mole]

Unhappiness can be propagated by "high class" as well as by low, and vulgarity does not discourage intellectualism. If we associate portions of ourselves and natural actions with being vulgar or not a topic worth discussing in public discourse because it's not proper, what does that teach us about parts of ourselves and our lives that are a natural part of being human? By suppressing things that are "dirty" we are ignoring problems and seeding shame.

messages like "cover up... someone could see you!" or "nobody wants to hear about that" are given to people all of the time... should we be ashamed that we have bodies? should we be ashamed that we are human? making something vulgar does that

deeming things vulgar or low class is a popular historical means for oppressing those who are different... are you trying to oppress those who are different Mole?

Perhaps you haven't quite grasped that I am talking about psychological vulgarity on a site devoted to psychology.

I am not talking about social class or the body, rather I am talking about psychology.

A potent word that has been used in psychology and philosophy for more than one hundred years is, ressentiment. It provides an individual and social explanation of psychological vulgarity.

And psychological vulgarity is damaging to the individual and to society.

Why do you think the book Ressentiment by Max Scheler was banned by the most damaging State in the twentieth century?

It was banned because it got too close to the bone and threatened to reveal the psychological underpinnings of the totalitarian State.

And Ressentiment threatens to reveal the psychological underpinnings of Typology Central.

 

[miss fortune]

Perhaps you haven't quite grasped that I am talking about psychological vulgarity on a site devoted to psychology.

I am not talking about social class or the body, rather I am talking about psychology.

A potent word that has been used in psychology and philosophy for more than one hundred years is, ressentiment. It provides an individual and social explanation of psychological vulgarity.

And psychological vulgarity is damaging to the individual and to society.

Why do you think the book Ressentiment by Max Scheler was banned by the most damaging State in the twentieth century?

It was banned because it got too close to the bone and threatened to reveal the psychological underpinnings of the totalitarian State.

And Ressentiment threatens to reveal the psychological underpinnings of Typology Central.

if you think that the psychological can be separated from the physical or the socioeconomic, you're fooling yourself

 

[Mole]

In response to the OP, I would just caution the use of rigid categories that are embraced or dismissed in their entirety. There is an aspect of high culture, or monied culture that seeks to value taste, but relies on status to determine worth. There is the possibility of depth and artistry occurring within any category of culture or labels. In this way the best judge of quality needs to be discerning, but also open minded enough to see value in new contexts.

Education can play a role in developing "taste", but popular culture teaches us to value its ideals as well. We are all "educated", we all learn from what we encounter, so it's also a lot more complex than just being educated or not. I think it was Tolstoy that compared great art to healthy food. He proposed that it is not an acquired taste, but true art resonates with each of us. It is not the domain of the elite.

There has been an overall dumbing down of culture, so yeah, there is a lot of "vulgar", mindless culture and art out there that is embraced like a big, squishy, greasy, pile of french fries and other food-like substances.

Andy Warhol, the great American artist of the vulgar, was having us all on, for after he died we went to his home and found it contained no, absolutely no, vulgar art, rather it was chockablock full of high culture art, that Andy preferred to live with day by day, while feeding muck to the masses. And we fell for it.

 

[Mole]

if you think that the psychological can be separated from the physical or the socioeconomic, you're fooling yourself

I am afraid we have separate Departments of Psychology in universities; we have separate Economic Departments in universities; and we have separate Biology Departments in universities.

I think they would be surprised to discover they can't separate Psychology, Economics and Biology, and that they have been fooling themselves all this time.

 

[miss fortune]

I am afraid we have separate Departments of Psychology in universities; we have separate Economic Departments in universities; and we have separate Biology Departments in universities.

I think they would be surprised to discover they can't separate Psychology, Economics and Biology, and that they have been fooling themselves all this time.

and when you take psychology, you also study the biology of the brain... I took psychobiology one year (and it and a few other related classes were required for a psych major... and everyone, including bio majors, had to take psychology)... also took social psych (and a good number of classes in that) which tied our psychology to our socioeconomic positions. Not to mention that game theory in economics has a heavy basis in psychology. I also took the psychology of human sexuality... and that involved more than the brain

how you feel and how you think and where you are all run into each other to the point where you have to understand the other two if you really want to understand one... if you don't get that you might want to consider humanity for a bit

 

[Coriolis]

Hmm by that logic, any written literature in societies where only a small minority could read was/is non-cultural.

Yes, it is non-cultural for them, just as heiroglyphs are non-cultural for modern Americans in any broad sense.

I didn't realize that it was just a matter of longevity. So if even the most trite, simplistic nursery rhyme was still considered highly a century in the future, it would be deemed high culture?

It would be considered a classic of its idiom. If it truly were trite and simplistic, with nothing that speaks to us on a more fundamental level, it would not last.

 

[Mole]

and when you take psychology, you also study the biology of the brain... I took psychobiology one year (and it and a few other related classes were required for a psych major... and everyone, including bio majors, had to take psychology)... also took social psych (and a good number of classes in that) which tied our psychology to our socioeconomic positions. Not to mention that game theory in economics has a heavy basis in psychology. I also took the psychology of human sexuality... and that involved more than the brain

how you feel and how you think and where you are all run into each other to the point where you have to understand the other two if you really want to understand one... if you don't get that you might want to consider humanity for a bit

Reductionism has been enormously successful in all the disciples of science.

Alas, Psychology is not a successful discipline of science, and yet it doesn't even have the status of an art or a religion, so in self defence Psychology abandons any form of discipline and embraces hocus pocus. So rather than being a discipline of science, Psychology adopts all the latest fads and fashions. We are told Psychology is wholistic and brings all the reductive sciences together in a whole. But finally when Psychology is driven to the wall, it tells us it speaks for humanity.

 

[miss fortune]

Reductionism has been enormously successful in all the disciples of science.

Alas, Psychology is not a successful discipline of science, and yet it doesn't even have the status of an art or a religion, so in self defence Psychology abandons any form of discipline and embraces hocus pocus. So rather than being a discipline of science, Psychology adopts all the latest fads and fashions. We are told Psychology is wholistic and brings all the reductive sciences together in a whole. But finally when Psychology is driven to the wall, it tells us it speaks for humanity.

ummm... no again

and please don't start taking this as another chance to loop back onto one of your 3 topics of posting on here

how much experience do you have with psychology or psychologists? or mental illness? do you understand the difference between psychology and psychiatry or what a social science is?

or should we take our advice from Tom Cruise and abandon the idea that such things exist in the first place?

 

[Mole]

ummm... no again

and please don't start taking this as another chance to loop back onto one of your 3 topics of posting on here

how much experience do you have with psychology or psychologists? or mental illness? do you understand the difference between psychology and psychiatry or what a social science is?

or should we take our advice from Tom Cruise and abandon the idea that such things exist in the first place?

'Social Science' is a contradiction in terms. Social Science is no more a science than the Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy is a science.

Neither Social Science nor Christian Science have a basis in fact like say the Periodic Table, and neither follow the scientific method.

They both borrow the kudos of science without being sciences.

 

[á´…eparted]

'Social Science' is a contradiction in terms. Social Science is no more a science than the Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy is a science.

Neither Social Science nor Christian Science have a basis in fact like say the Periodic Table, and neither follow the scientific method.

They both borrow the kudos of science without being sciences.

Chrstian Science is a Religion, so that's a different catergory. That said...

So you're rejecting sociology and psychology outright? Good to know, because there is an entire field with volumes upon volumes of verifiable data that says otherwise.

Aka: you're simply factually wrong.

 

[miss fortune]

'Social Science' is a contradiction in terms. Social Science is no more a science than the Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy is a science.

Neither Social Science nor Christian Science have a basis in fact like say the Periodic Table, and neither follow the scientific method.

They both borrow the kudos of science without being sciences.

social sciences DO learn about the world around them by using facts and observations... and even experiments

that kind of makes them sciences according to the definition of science

are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not look these things up before stating them?

 

[magpie]

While I have no idea what point Mole is trying to prove about culture and think he is generally wrong in most things, there are technically hard sciences and soft sciences. Where you draw the line between the two and how much overlap you think exists is something you have to define for yourself. But... I'm just putting that out there.

Edit: Though ironically Mole told me about a year? ago that psychology was basically the opus of modern thinking. Mole, do you just state whatever you feel will contradict what someone else is saying?

 

[Mole]

Scientific Theory and Psychology

social sciences DO learn about the world around them by using facts and observations... and even experiments

that kind of makes them sciences according to the definition of science

are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not look these things up before stating them?

Before we can call something a science, it needs to have a Scientific Theory. And a Scientific Theory is not what the layperson thinks, rather a Scientific Theory is an established scientific fact.

For instance, the established fact of Chemistry is the Periodic Table, and the established fact of Biology is Natural Selection, in Physics it is Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.


But there is no Scientific Theory for Psychology, so Psychology is not a science.

By the way, there is no need to insult me personally because it is against the rules and may lead to banning. But if you have the impulse to insult me personally, rather than acting on it, you might like to ask yourself what this impulse means for you.

 

[miss fortune]

Before we can call something a science, it needs to have a Scientific Theory. And a Scientific Theory is not what the layperson thinks, rather a Scientific Theory is an established scientific fact.

For instance, the established fact of Chemistry is the Periodic Table, and the established fact of Biology is Natural Selection, in Physics it is Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.


But there is no Scientific Theory for Psychology, so Psychology is not a science.

I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions from, but they are not correct... I gave you the official definition and if you can't accept that I guess that means that we're supposed to be living in Mole-land where up is down and blue is red?

By the way, there is no need to insult me personally because it is against the rules and may lead to banning. But if you have the impulse to insult me personally, rather than acting on it, you might like to ask yourself what this impulse means for you.

I do know the rules, Mole... and that wasn't a personal insult. You want for me to infract myself for that?

 

[Mole]

that wasn't a personal insult. You want for me to infract myself for that?

Whatever, you don't know me personally, so when you insult me personally, it is misdirected, and is far more likely due to emotional pain in your own psyche.

I do understand that insulting me does give you immediate relief from your emotional pain, but only at the expense of long term understanding of yourself.

So I am sugesting that when you feel the impulse to insult me, you use this as a golden opportunity to further understand yourself.

And when you do reach a further understanding of yourself, it would be nice to share it with us.

 

[miss fortune]

Whatever, you don't know me personally, so when you insult me personally, it is misdirected, and is far more likely due to emotional pain in your own psyche.

I do understand that insulting me does give you immediate relief from your emotional pain, but only at the expense of long term understanding of yourself.

So I am sugesting that when you feel the impulse to insult me, you use this as a golden opportunity to further understand yourself.

And when you do reach a further understanding of yourself, it would be nice to share it with us.

I told you, it wasn't a personal insult... it was an insult of the post because I DON'T KNOW YOU. I DO, however, know your posting style and that no matter what anyone says, if you don't like it you're going to claim that it's an insult and that the poster of said post is going to get banned. It's that or going back to the same few topics or accusing someone else of having issues... you need to expand your repertoire, good sir... you're getting a little stale.

still obsessing over yourself, I see

 

[á´…eparted]

Before we can call something a science, it needs to have a Scientific Theory. And a Scientific Theory is not what the layperson thinks, rather a Scientific Theory is an established scientific fact.

For instance, the established fact of Chemistry is the Periodic Table, and the established fact of Biology is Natural Selection, in Physics it is Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

But there is no Scientific Theory for Psychology, so Psychology is not a science.

You seemed to have ignored what I said previously. There are VOLUMES upon VOLUMES of reproducable and verifiable research in psychology and sociology out there, that prove your claim false. You can say it's not a science, but it doesn't make you right. Denying this is no different than denying gravity, or the holocaust.

By the way, there is no need to insult me personally because it is against the rules and may lead to banning. But if you have the impulse to insult me personally, rather than acting on it, you might like to ask yourself what this impulse means for you.

A. Whatever is a mod (note that the name is blue), so she damn well knows what the rules are and abides by them. You had to of known that. She did not insult you. You're being too sensitive.
B. Do you also realize how insufferibly haughty saying this makes you sound? It makes basically everyone pay no respect to you. Which, has the downstream effect of no one taking you seriously even when you have something meaningful to say.
C. If you have a problem with what someone says, report it, don't publically shout "you're breaking the rules". That's not your job, and when it involves you, you can hardly be the arbiter of if it's a problem or not. The mods are MUCH less inclined to deal with situations when you try to publically shame them like this (and for the record, it doesn't cause the effect you want).
D. What she said wasn't an insult. In this case (like basically every other single time you make this little "pet statement"), you're misconstruing someone challenging your assertions. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean they are trying to personally slight you.
E. This is the epitome of passive aggression, and does NOTHING to help your case at ALL. It begs the question if you actually care about having insults "resolved", as opposed to making a mess and trying to "get back at them".

I told you, it wasn't a personal insult... it was an insult of the post because I DON'T KNOW YOU. I DO, however, know your posting style and that no matter what anyone says, if you don't like it you're going to claim that it's an insult and that the poster of said post is going to get banned. It's that or going back to the same few topics or accusing someone else of having issues... you need to expand your repertoire, good sir... you're getting a little stale.

still obsessing over yourself, I see

^Yeah basically this. She said it more succinctly.

 

[Mole]

I told you, it wasn't a personal insult... it was an insult of the post because I DON'T KNOW YOU. I DO, however, know your posting style and that no matter what anyone says, if you don't like it you're going to claim that it's an insult and that the poster of said post is going to get banned. It's that or going back to the same few topics or accusing someone else of having issues... you need to expand your repertoire, good sir... you're getting a little stale.

still obsessing over yourself, I see

I'm not the issue. And I certainly don't want to have a personal fight with you. So it will be with regret that, unless you stop trying to have a fight with me, I will be forced to put you on Ignore.

But really, it would be in your best interests to ask why you are trying to have personal fights on the internet.