I didn't even know books not being worth reading was a elite intellectual meme lol. Well, these rationalists are the same people who drink Soylent right? Joyless nerds? I'm not in the rationalist scene, if anything I'm in the irrationalist scene
βBut Iβm 100% certain that if you gathered some passages from Marcus Aurelius and hired a halfway intelligent blogger to produce content made to sound like Marcus Aurelius, nobody would be able to tell the difference.β
A bit of an aside, but wait until he finds out about Ryan Holiday lol. Iβve read some of his stuff and Iβve read Aurelius, and boy are they very different experiences.
Christ, Mills, I donβt know where to start. I donβt even know how I happened upon this post but, wow, and thank you.
A couple of things; my beloved is a therapist, he hails from The Black Country (in the UK), called so because it was full of iron foundries, and everything was coated in black soot (as an aside, the molten iron would glow red in amongst the black at night; Tolkien based Mordor on the place). In The Black Country, culture dictates that love and respect are expressed by offering up cold, hard truths. All that to say, your therapist went Black Country on your assβmay we all be so blessed.
Also, the incident you described reminded me of something I read in a book by Richard Rohr (I think it was Breathing Under Water):
TheΒ preferred ego patternΒ is:
sin ----> punishment ----> repentance ----> transformation
TheΒ grace patternΒ is:
sin ----> unconditional love ----> transformation ----> repentance
And, actually, a third thing (there could easily be many more, Iβve watched Tree of Life upward of 40 times). When I read βI felt a familiar set of sensations: the βrisingβ metabolism, the feeling of pitching forward as oneβs posture arranges itself for combat, the surging, transporting ecstasy of violence gatheringβ I was shocked by how eagerly my own body responded to these words, especially the βecstasy of violence gatheringβ. I (delusionally) think of myself as being relatively peaceful, and this was a wonderful reminder of how unintegrated the rageful and violent parts of myself are. Iβm so glad to have found your writing. Thank you again.
Re: Hanania and great books, I agree with your take. There is no substitute for seeing for oneself how the greatest thinkers in history actually thought and worked through their ideas. Many other good reasons to read the great books, although I went to a great books college so I'm biased.
I wonder if a lot of this comes down to how much someone actually enjoys reading, as opposed to seeing it merely as an instrumental means to knowledge acquisition. I got the sense in his essay that he is more the latter, but that's just speculation. I'm sure it's related to your great point about one's ability to internalize the author and immerse oneself in the world of the book. The greatest of the greats-- Homer, Plato, some parts of the bible, Cervantes, Shakespeare, pretty much require that ability in order to actually enjoy them.
I like what you wrote here, Mills, about Hanania. The dubious logic of his unnecessary extension caused me to unsubscribe to him. Iβd been giving him the benefit of the doubt on the identity politics stuff, but dismissing Shakespeare was a dealbreaker for me.
Reading your pieces always feels like a children's fun house - I mean this in an absolutely complimentary way. I can enter a few different ways, explore particular rooms, go down a slide or two and get tied up in a ball pit. Which is to say, I enjoyed this one a lot.
"But because I love Malick, I was willing to endure and entertain elements of the film Iβd likely not have tolerated, or sought to interpret favorably, in another filmmaker."
I totally agree with this sentiment, especially when it comes to Malick. I don't necessarily look forward to his films, but I know they're made with the utmost care and craftsmanship, and I appreciate certain artistic choices, whereas with another filmmaker, I'll deem the same choices a mistake. Maybe this comes with being foundational to a style? I can't count the times I've used the term "Malick-like" as a knock against a film, but Malick himself with Malick-like the hell out of a movie, and I'll love it...
That being said, I skipped Knight of Cups and will remedy that small misfortune this month!
This was great in so many ways. But what I appreciate most is the nuance of it all. That, and the undecided - yet keen to ponder - humility with which you explore the ideas present in Malickβs film.
Here's a serious question, since you alluded to it. As a young viewer did you identify the most closely with White? It seems that way from this anecdote.
βHanania is, these paragraphs imply, on the hunt for discrete insights, or knowledge, and he notes that can get these as effectively from βscientific papers and news magazinesβ as he can from non-fiction books. Each insight is, he suggests, basically fungible.β
Ugh. This ruthless drive for *efficiency* and parcelled-up nuggets of information. You nailed it. π― Such a great piece.
I didn't even know books not being worth reading was a elite intellectual meme lol. Well, these rationalists are the same people who drink Soylent right? Joyless nerds? I'm not in the rationalist scene, if anything I'm in the irrationalist scene
βBut Iβm 100% certain that if you gathered some passages from Marcus Aurelius and hired a halfway intelligent blogger to produce content made to sound like Marcus Aurelius, nobody would be able to tell the difference.β
A bit of an aside, but wait until he finds out about Ryan Holiday lol. Iβve read some of his stuff and Iβve read Aurelius, and boy are they very different experiences.
Christ, Mills, I donβt know where to start. I donβt even know how I happened upon this post but, wow, and thank you.
A couple of things; my beloved is a therapist, he hails from The Black Country (in the UK), called so because it was full of iron foundries, and everything was coated in black soot (as an aside, the molten iron would glow red in amongst the black at night; Tolkien based Mordor on the place). In The Black Country, culture dictates that love and respect are expressed by offering up cold, hard truths. All that to say, your therapist went Black Country on your assβmay we all be so blessed.
Also, the incident you described reminded me of something I read in a book by Richard Rohr (I think it was Breathing Under Water):
TheΒ preferred ego patternΒ is:
sin ----> punishment ----> repentance ----> transformation
TheΒ grace patternΒ is:
sin ----> unconditional love ----> transformation ----> repentance
And, actually, a third thing (there could easily be many more, Iβve watched Tree of Life upward of 40 times). When I read βI felt a familiar set of sensations: the βrisingβ metabolism, the feeling of pitching forward as oneβs posture arranges itself for combat, the surging, transporting ecstasy of violence gatheringβ I was shocked by how eagerly my own body responded to these words, especially the βecstasy of violence gatheringβ. I (delusionally) think of myself as being relatively peaceful, and this was a wonderful reminder of how unintegrated the rageful and violent parts of myself are. Iβm so glad to have found your writing. Thank you again.
banger
Re: Hanania and great books, I agree with your take. There is no substitute for seeing for oneself how the greatest thinkers in history actually thought and worked through their ideas. Many other good reasons to read the great books, although I went to a great books college so I'm biased.
I wonder if a lot of this comes down to how much someone actually enjoys reading, as opposed to seeing it merely as an instrumental means to knowledge acquisition. I got the sense in his essay that he is more the latter, but that's just speculation. I'm sure it's related to your great point about one's ability to internalize the author and immerse oneself in the world of the book. The greatest of the greats-- Homer, Plato, some parts of the bible, Cervantes, Shakespeare, pretty much require that ability in order to actually enjoy them.
I like what you wrote here, Mills, about Hanania. The dubious logic of his unnecessary extension caused me to unsubscribe to him. Iβd been giving him the benefit of the doubt on the identity politics stuff, but dismissing Shakespeare was a dealbreaker for me.
Loved this!
Reading your pieces always feels like a children's fun house - I mean this in an absolutely complimentary way. I can enter a few different ways, explore particular rooms, go down a slide or two and get tied up in a ball pit. Which is to say, I enjoyed this one a lot.
"But because I love Malick, I was willing to endure and entertain elements of the film Iβd likely not have tolerated, or sought to interpret favorably, in another filmmaker."
I totally agree with this sentiment, especially when it comes to Malick. I don't necessarily look forward to his films, but I know they're made with the utmost care and craftsmanship, and I appreciate certain artistic choices, whereas with another filmmaker, I'll deem the same choices a mistake. Maybe this comes with being foundational to a style? I can't count the times I've used the term "Malick-like" as a knock against a film, but Malick himself with Malick-like the hell out of a movie, and I'll love it...
That being said, I skipped Knight of Cups and will remedy that small misfortune this month!
I mean, really good therapists are the paid-for parents we actually needed (said with no shade at all to the parents we got).
So happy to have discovered you guys, and to have you over at D&B. Iβm about to re-read this beauty of a post. Thanks again, Mills
Anger is a boner made me laugh. Accurate though.
I've only watched "A Hidden Life" which I thought was a great movie. However, now I'm curious to watch these two movies.
This was great in so many ways. But what I appreciate most is the nuance of it all. That, and the undecided - yet keen to ponder - humility with which you explore the ideas present in Malickβs film.
Lmao Hanania - imagine having no understanding of STYLE!
Here's a serious question, since you alluded to it. As a young viewer did you identify the most closely with White? It seems that way from this anecdote.
βHanania is, these paragraphs imply, on the hunt for discrete insights, or knowledge, and he notes that can get these as effectively from βscientific papers and news magazinesβ as he can from non-fiction books. Each insight is, he suggests, basically fungible.β
Ugh. This ruthless drive for *efficiency* and parcelled-up nuggets of information. You nailed it. π― Such a great piece.
I hope you stuck with the therapist. Sheβs good.