does anyone else have a recurring fantasy/desire about being a part of a small circle of literati who develop a cohesive domain of thought? things like the Vienna circle for the most extreme famous case, or the Toronto Semiotics circle for a more generic example
if you were in one of these groups what would you ideally be writing about/commenting on?
>>8171600
I browse /lit/ sensu depai.
>>8171634
Holy shit me too.
>>8171600
I would write lots of letters to other members but only rarely show up to the meetings themselves, to develop an air of mystique about myself. I would probably just discuss lit/philology
>>8171634
>>8171647
/lit/ is definitely a club with membership qualities, but this specific fantasy has more to do with being a group of productive intellectuals (or perhaps hardworking pseuds). i'm not so sure a group like that could actually originate on /lit/, where the users are too busy creating robust layerings of irony.
Such things have never existed. You get small groups who have evolving domains of thought, one in particular of which they become known for but they don't just somehow lock into that one mode of thought for the rest of their lives. Think about it, think how unrealistic that is.
Yeah been there done that. You'd have to be crazy to want to seriously do that.
I'd recommend not sharing your secrets, because eventually someone will get jealous and use that dirt. For serious. Stay pseudo, stay safe.
I have this type of fantasy. Mine specifically involves being part some sort of traditionalist movement in literature, highly critical of modern literature and art.
>>8171752
>muh Dalarna
>muh uppsalanationalism
>>8171731
my particular version of this fantasy actually has a network of groups all working 'against' each other... but the frame of reference is the same between the groups. it's a lot like teams of scientists or engineers competing with each other.
>>8171748
what did you do specifically? the actual activities of groups like this is vague to me, i have never been in one. but at the same time the intention and activity of the group seems obvious.
>>8171768
I won't be too specific, since I'm kind of lying low, but here's the gist.
First, have an IQ +4 SD. Start a blog and a twitter. Study an intense amount so that people are attracted to your ideas. Give encouragement to those you identify as having a similar goal of self-improvement. Develop a goal you can effect in the world. Work at it full time for years. Be sure to maintain positive relationships between everyone. Connect different groups of people that have overlapping interests. Share what you produce. Sacrifice.
It's a lot of work, but it's satisfying. Now I'm not in that gig, but maybe I'll make a return in a decade or so. I've gained a lot more patience since I was young.
>>8171820
Does this actually happen?
Most smaller communities on the internet that focus around one personality are just playing the "us vs. them" crap. There's no positive relationship past the "we're better than those normies/non-thinkers/foreigners/etc.". No-one is particularly or even extremely smart, even though the main guy pretends to be to the point that it's embarrassing.
Look at less wrong which focuses around Harry Potter fanfiction fatsack, or that whatever of Akkad (accad? Akad?). It's all just "we're better", nothing else.
>>8171841
Avoiding that circlejerk is the hard part. (Even the logical positivists turned into a circlejerk over Wittgenstein.) It's part of why I moved on, and am simply focused on spiritual self-improvement. My new life goal is to gain some wisdom that might later bring comfort to those searching for it.
There will always be people in the group who use it to compensate for their own insecurities. In truth, I think Yudkowsky is one of the most brilliant and original thinkers this century has yet produced. The others who tag along will always pale in comparison to those in whose shade they find solace.
You have to learn to see past the outer shell that people project, and understand that everyone is dealing with some unresolved trauma from childhood. Life is tough, proceed with compassion and enjoy the small beauties in life. It's there if you look for it.
Can 2 people make a circle?
Me and my best friend always meet to discuss books and writing and it almost look like were alone all n the flippin world. Like I have -never- met anyone as dedicated to reading, writing and literature in general as us 2. Like holy shit I don't wanna act like we're the shit but people all around are plebian as fuck.
Even the more well-read colleagues are just pretenders who, at the end of the day, only read popular stuff to post on Instagram pics of open books and appear smart.
I wanna kill myself.
>>8171600
It's what I thought university would be like
>>8171930
Sure, but pretend there are more members and deny your own involvement.
>>8171752
Join me,
>>8171600
It sounds narcissistic. I find the thought unappealing, personally.
>>8171752
>Le urban underage hermit xDD
La Chinoise is one of my favourite films OP
>Mr. Kosygin! Mr. Kosygin!
>>8171768
is this la chinois
>>8171600
i tried to, but i guess i came to the wrong city.
>>8171600
Yes, when I was in high school, I too tried to have a "small circle" of freethinkers, op. I too watched shitty arthouse as well
>>8172968
shit taste
>>8172959
I don't understand what you mean by this
>>8172983
Why didn't you watch good arthouse?
>>8173722
>good arthouse
Kek.
>>8173726
You don't like Bresson, or Mizoguchi, or Dreyer? What do you like if you don't like arthouse? Hollywood blockbusters?
>>8173759
>everyone likes films
>>8171600
I would but I find it really hard to praise people for something that makes me internally vomit. Which is what happens every time someone asks me to proof a paper for them.
>>8173759
Not the guy you're replying to, but my favorite directors are Cameron and Miyazaki. Film is an entertainment medium, if I want art I look elsewhere.
>>8173779
>film is an entertainment medium
For you
>>8173759
Nobody past high school should still have this attitude of "muh blockbusters are not for free thinkers like me" you still find arthoise directors through forms of pop culture, both are popular and both aren't really hard to call good since you always have le critics good praise to croon to others, le intellectual man
Also meme directors.nice! name-dropping isn't impressive when it's babbys first not le Reddit directors arthoise
I read this book a few months ago that would probably interest you, OP. It's interviews with collaborative art groups. Obviously the groups tend to focus on visual and performance art but I think these days "pure" theoretical groups are rare anyways because praxis. There isn't really a step-by-step guide to joining or making such a group but it is an interesting glimpse into how each collaborative employs various aspects of organizational structure like meeting-up, defining membership, and getting paid.
Not OP but thank you!
