【推文】James Lindsay - "Sociognostics" - Gnostics whose "spiritual" realm of control by a false evil...
原文及個人翻譯
推文
A word about Lindsay Clancy's supporters, the Left, and the infernal Left-Right dynamic, which will never repair.
The Right will never message effectively, except to other people on the Right, about Lindsay Clancy and her supporters. Thus, the divide and enmity will only deepen.
I don't say this to blame the Right. It is certainly the Left who are in the wrong on this point, but the Left aren't just in the wrong; they're lost in the wrong. They have no hope of seeing it any other way, and I mean that. Only someone outside the Left has any hope of talking about the issue in a way that breaks through. That responsibility mostly falls to the Right, but the Right is only interested in talking to itself about the issue and morally preening for each other.
I've covered this about a thousand times over the last four years, so I don't really expect this to land either, but I feel like someone should say it. The punchline is that as long as the Right keeps talking to itself and morally preening for each other over these kinds of moral issues, this problem will keep getting worse.
The short version of a politer way to get to the point is to say that the Right doesn't understand the Left, so it cannot talk to or about the Left without the Left using it as justification to become worse, and the Right refuses to understand the Left. I don't mean they can't. I mean they won't. They simply refuse. They're too busy preening for each other by moralizing the Left instead. (And, yes, this is part of why I'm going back to using the third person plural (them), where I had been brought toward the first person plural (us), for talking about the Right.)
I'll try to do this in new words since the old words didn't get anywhere no matter how many times I said them. I don't think these will either, but I've got to try.
The Left's primary driver gets discussed a lot. People say envy, and there's no doubt about that being there. They say hatred, and that's prominently there too. They suggest pride, and that's part of the mix. None of these is actually foundational to the way the Left encounters the world, even if they're emotionally primary.
關於Lindsay Clancy的支持者、左派以及永無止境的左右對立，我想說幾句。
右派永遠無法有效地向除了右派人士之外的人士，談論Lindsay Clancy及其支持者。因此，這種分裂和敵意只會加深。
我不是要責怪右派。很明顯，在這一點上，是左派錯了，但他們不僅僅是錯了；他們迷失在了錯誤之中。他們沒有任何希望以其他方式看待問題，我的意思是真的。只有那些不屬於左派的人才有希望以一種能夠打破僵局的方式來談論這個問題。這種責任主要落在右派身上，但右派只對與自己討論這個問題以及互相道德自戀感興趣。
過去四年我已經重複說過這件事一千多次了，所以我也不太指望這次能奏效，但我感覺有人應該說出來。結論是，只要右派繼續與自己談論，並且在這些道德問題上互相道德自戀，這個問題就會持續惡化。
更委婉地表達這一點的簡潔版本是：右派不了解左派，因此無法與左派交流或討論左派，而不會被左派利用來證明他們需要變得更糟，而且右派拒絕去理解左派。我不是說他們不能理解。我是說他們不會。他們只是拒絕。他們太忙於通過道德化左派來互相自戀了。（是的，這也是我為什麼要回到使用第三人稱複數（他們）來談論右派，而不是之前傾向於使用第一人稱複數（我們）。）
我會嘗試用新的詞語來表達，因為舊的詞語無論我說多少次都無法起到作用。我不認為這些詞語也會起作用，但我必須試一試。
左派的主要動機經常被討論。人們說嫉妒，毫無疑問這是存在的。他們說仇恨，這也十分明顯。他們暗示自豪，這也是其中的一部分。然而，這些都不是左派看待世界的方式的根本原因，即使它們在情感上是主要的。
(1) The Left sees the world in terms of being trapped in a world not of their choosing and not to their liking. / 左派將世界視為一個他們沒有選擇，而且也不喜歡的世界，他們感到被困其中。
The envy flows directly from this feeling of being trapped in an unjust world. The world works for some people, just not people like them. Maybe it isn't them personally, but someone they can identify with.
The hatred flows directly from this same feeling, but with an extra piece. They hate the world not for being the way it is but for being kept the way it is. They hate the people who keep the world the way it is. Conservatives and "the Right" are usually tasked with exactly this, so the Left hates the Right.
The pride is connected to this same idea, again with a twist. The Left thinks it is above the world the way it is, and above the people who keep the world the way it is. So, they think they know better and are better. A lot follows from this pride that we would all recognize immediately.
But now we see an opening to the second point.
這種嫉妒直接源於他們被困在一個不公正的世界中的感受。這個世界對某些人來說是有效的，但對像他們這樣的人卻不是。也許並非他們個人，而是他們可以認同的其他人。
這種仇恨也直接源於同樣的感受，但帶有一種額外的成分。他們不僅僅因為世界就是如此而憎恨它，而是因為這個世界被維持在現狀。他們憎恨那些保持世界現狀的人。通常，保守派和「右派」就被賦予了這項任務，因此左派憎恨右派。
這種自豪與相同的想法相關聯，但帶有一種轉變。左派認為自己高於當下的世界，也高於那些維持這個世界現狀的人。因此，他們認為自己比別人更了解和更好。許多後果都源於這種自豪，我們都會立即認識到。
現在，我們看到了第二個論點的突破口。
(2) The Left sees the world not as necessarily bad but kept as bad by people who they believe benefit from the world being kept bad. / 左派不認為世界本身就是壞的，而是認為這個世界被某些人維持在糟糕的狀態，而他們相信這些人從保持這個世界糟糕中受益。
This means that the Left believes a better world is possible. A better world is a world where they don't feel trapped by a world they don't like, that doesn't suit "people like them" or with whom they identify. It isn't the world itself but people in the world who make the world the way it is. The Left hates those people and the system and society they maintain for themselves.
That is, the Left believes it is trapped by an all-pervasive system that keeps them trapped. The system has economic dimensions, political dimensions, social dimensions, and moral dimensions, all of which it believes are socially constructed and therefore mutable.
The world could be different, they think (often wrongly), but people who benefit from the existing status quo don't want it to be and won't let it. Thus, they suffer, or they see people with whom they identify suffering (in which case they suffer too, "empathy").
With regard to Lindsay Clancy supporters (and rather horrifying super pro-life advocacy), the Left primarily feels trapped in a moral system they believe is wrong and that is arbitrarily upheld by people who don't understand or care how it makes people like them, or those with whom they identify, suffer.
This is why the Right consistently talks about both of these issues incorrectly, effectively morally preening for each other on the issues while failing to make any headway with the Left and driving them to further extremes in (pathological, yes) reactance. The Right moralizes these issues, which is exactly what the Left feels like the trap is constructed out of. Thus, they feel more trapped, and act more like a rabid racoon in a trap.
I insist again in my well-earned pessimism: the Right will not do otherwise. In fact, it will refuse to do otherwise because doing otherwise would be a moral sin in its own moral game. It will refuse on principle to have a different conversation or even to dare to think differently or about the perspective the people they mostly rightly oppose might hold. This is going nowhere, but at least we can understand it, I guess.
這意味著左派認為一個更好的世界是可能的。一個更美好的世界是一個他們不再感到被自己不喜歡的世界束縛的世界，或者一個更適合「像他們這樣的人」或與他們有共同認同感的人的世界。問題不在於這個世界本身，而是存在於其中的人們，正是這些人使這個世界保持在現狀。左派憎恨那些人和他們所維護的體系和社會。
也就是說，左派認為自己被一個無處不在的體制所束縛，而這個體制讓他們永遠無法擺脫困境。這個體制具有經濟、政治、社會和道德等多個方面，而且左派認為所有這些都是社會建構的，因此是可以改變的。
他們認為（通常是錯誤的），世界可以不同，但從現狀中受益的人們不希望如此，也不會允許這樣。因此，他們遭受痛苦，或者他們看到與自己有共同認同感的人遭受痛苦（在這種情況下，他們也會感到痛苦，「同情」）。
關於Lindsay Clancy的支持者（以及令人髮指的親生命倡導），左派主要感到被困在一個他們認為錯誤的道德體系中，而這個體系是由那些不理解或不在乎它如何讓像他們這樣的人，或者與他們有共同認同感的人，遭受痛苦的人們隨意維持著。
這就是為什麼右派始終以錯誤的方式談論這兩個問題，實際上是在這些問題上互相道德自戀，但卻沒有在左派面前取得任何進展，反而將他們推向更極端的（病態的）反抗狀態。右派對這些問題進行道德譴責，這正是左派認為這種束縛是由於什麼而造成的。因此，他們感到更加被束縛，並表現得像一個被困在陷阱中的發瘋的浣熊。
我再次堅持我的理所當然的悲觀主義：右派不會有任何改變。事實上，它會拒絕做出任何改變，因為做出任何改變在它自己的道德體系中是一種道德罪過。出於原則，他們會拒絕進行不同的對話，甚至不敢去思考或了解那些他們大多正確反對的人們可能持有的觀點。這毫無希望，但至少我們可以理解它，我想。
(3) The Left hates the system that traps them and the people who maintain it or benefit from it. / 左派憎恨束縛他們的體制，以及那些維持它或從中受益的人。
I know I already technically said this, but it's really important to drive home. Because the Left feels trapped by the system, whether crazy or not for that, they hate the system. They also hate the people who maintain the system. They will do anything against those people, including pushing even harder in the opposite direction of the system and its supporters and thinking it's good to do so.
Until you understand that the Left's entire worldview is constructed on a foundation of feeling like they are trapped in a world they do not like, which is arbitrarily established to the benefit of others who refuse to understand why they feel trapped and to change things so they feel less trapped, you don't understand the Left. (The high-minded here will recognize that they're in the mold of Rousseau, ultimately, thus Leftists.)
我知道我已經技術上說過這個，但真的非常重要。因為左派感到被體制束縛（無論這種感覺是合理的還是荒謬的），他們憎恨這個體制。他們也憎恨那些維持這個體制或從中受益的人。他們會做任何事情來反抗這些人，包括更加努力地朝與體系及其支持者相反的方向前進，並且認為這樣做是好的。
除非你理解左派的整個世界觀都是建立在一個基礎上，即他們感到被困在一個他們不喜歡的世界中，而這個世界是被隨意建立起來的，以利於那些拒絕理解為什麼他們會感到被困，以及改變事物以減少他們這種被困感的人，否則你就無法真正理解左派。（那些自命清高的人會意識到，他們最終是盧梭的思想體系的一部分，因此是左翼人士。）
(4) Moralizing makes it worse, not better, because the "trapped" feeling is made out of being moralized to. / 道德譴責會使情況更糟，而不是更好，因為「被困」的感覺是由於受到道德譴責而產生的。
When the Right moralizes about issues like abortion or the support they're giving Lindsay Clancy and the self-recognition they see of themselves in her (mostly in personal terror, by the way), they feel more trapped. They understand that the Right, who doesn't get it already, refuses to try to get it, doesn't want to get it, and wants to impose the exact problem they perceive upon them even harder.
I'm not saying they're right here. They aren't. I think they're insane, in fact, but their insanity is comprehensible and thus potentially curable.
What they see in the Lindsay Clancy situation (or abortion) is the possibility that something like that might come up in their lives and massively derail everything for them. They're terrified of it because they already feel the real stresses of life, particularly in these cases with regard to female fertility and the responsibilities and pressures of motherhood/parenthood. (I'm not saying this is a healthy way to look at it, again; I'm saying they are stuck seeing it this way.)
Therefore, they're terrified that, there, but for the grace of God go they, wherein horrors compound over their lives and ruin literally everything they care about (which isn't always just themselves), and they see and hear the Right saying, "You're God-damned right, you stupid, evil bitch." Say it as nicely as you want, guys. I'm telling you; that's what they hear.
They are telling you, badly, what they feel and what they think. They're telling you they're under pressures which are quite normal but that they don't feel equipped to handle. They feel, perhaps wrongly, though sometimes with strong points, that "the system" out there isn't adequate to catching them if they fall and might even be making the risks worse, perhaps for deeply cynical (and evil) reasons. They're telling you they know they're on the edge and don't have help.
You're telling them you don't care. You're telling them to get it together like you have it together. You're telling them their concerns are all crap and that their fears are expressions of evil and selfishness. You're increasing their (yes, pathological) feeling of being trapped.
They, in response, lash out, act out, exaggerate, scream, and do positively antisocial things in the opposite direction.
當右派對像墮胎或他們給Lindsay Clancy提供的支持等問題進行道德譴責時，以及他們在Clancy身上看到的自我認同（主要是在個人恐懼中），他們會感到更加被困。他們明白，那些已經不理解的人中的右派，拒絕嘗試去理解，不想去理解，並且想要更嚴厲地將他們所感知的問題強加給他們。
我不是說他們是對的。他們錯了。事實上，我認為他們是瘋狂的，但他們的瘋狂是可以理解的，因此有可能被治癒。
在Lindsay Clancy事件（或墮胎）中，他們看到了這樣一種可能性：類似的事情可能會發生在他們自己的生活中，並對他們的生活造成毀滅性的影響。他們害怕這種情況，因為他們已經感受到了生活中的真實壓力，尤其是在這些案例中，與女性生育以及母職/父職的責任和壓力有關。（我再次強調，這不是一個健康的角度來看待問題；我只是說他們被困在這樣看待問題的方式中。）
因此，他們害怕，如果沒有上帝的恩典，他們也會面臨同樣的命運，而這種可怕的事情會加劇他們的痛苦，並摧毀他們所關心的一切（而且不總是只與自己有關），他們聽到右派說：「你他媽的是對的，你這個愚蠢、邪惡的婊子。」你們可以盡可能用委婉的方式表達，但我告訴你們，這就是他們聽到的。
他們正在以一種糟糕的方式告訴你們他們的感受和想法。他們正在告訴你們，他們承受著相當正常的壓力，但他們覺得自己沒有能力應對這些壓力。他們或許錯誤地認為（雖然有時也有道理），「這個體制」並不能在他們跌倒時提供足夠的支持，甚至可能因為一些非常自私（而且邪惡）的原因而加劇風險。他們正在告訴你們，他們知道自己處於邊緣，並且沒有得到幫助。
你們卻告訴他們你們不在乎。你們告訴他們要振作起來，就像你們一樣。你們告訴他們他們的擔憂都是一無是處的，他們的恐懼是邪惡和自私的表現。你們正在加劇他們（是的，病態）的被困感。
作為回應，他們會發洩、胡鬧、誇大其詞、尖叫，並做出非常反社會的事情，朝著相反的方向。
(5) Psychological reactance is real, even if it's sometimes stupid. / 心理反彈是真實存在的，即使它有時顯得很愚蠢。
Their reaction is based in a psychological phenomenon called "reactance." Reactance occurs when someone believes they are losing something they already have, particularly a right or a freedom they have and/or feel entitled to.
Leftists do not believe they are entitled to murder their own children, not even in abortion, except in extremely pathological and rare cases (which always make headlines).
Leftists believe they have a right to set the course for their own lives (not to create their own lives) and for that life to be generally good, comfortable, and happy.
They are mostly right and partly wrong about this, of course. They do have a right to set the course for their own lives, mostly. This is what Jefferson famously called the unalienable right of the "pursuit of happiness."
There are contingencies and realities, though, like female fertility and the demands of motherhood/parenthood. That is, there are responsibilities that shape that course. I'm not saying the Left is seeing this issue correctly. I don't think they are, in fact. I think they feel trapped by responsibilities are simply facts of life, not all of which are perfectly "equitable" in every way (e.g., fatherhood and motherhood are different in many ways, not identical, not "equitable").
Further, no one actually has a right to have a good, comfortable, happy life. That's an aspiration, a hope. A lot of people (including most of the young politically active conservatives who are swinging Woke Right for the same reason) get this confused. They think they have a "human right" to a good life, a comfortable life, an affordable life, a happy life, free this, free that, blah, blah, blah. They don't. They have the right to pursue those things mostly unhindered by state interference or the interference of powerful others.
他們的反應是基於一種稱為「反彈」的心理現象。當某人認為自己正在失去已經擁有的東西時，就會發生反彈，特別是他們擁有的權利或自由，以及/或他們認為理應擁有的東西。
左派並不認為他們有權利謀殺自己的孩子，即使是在墮胎的情況下，除非是非常病態和罕見的案例（這些案例總是成為頭條新聞）。
左派相信他們有權利為自己的人生規劃方向（而不是創造自己的生活），並且希望他們的生活通常是美好、舒適和幸福的。
當然，他們在這一點上大部分是對的，但也有一部分是錯的。他們確實有權利為自己的人生規劃方向，而且大部分時候都是如此。這就是傑斐遜著名所說的「追求幸福」的不可剝奪的權利。
然而，存在一些情況和現實，例如女性生育能力以及母職/父職的需求。也就是說，存在一些塑造這種發展軌跡的責任。我不是說左派正在以正確的方式看待這個問題。事實上，我不認為他們是這樣看的。我認為他們感到被生活中的責任所束縛，而這些責任只是生活的事實，並非在所有方面都是「公平」的（例如，父職和母職在許多方面是不同的，而不是相同的，也不是「公平」的）。
此外，實際上沒有人有權利擁有美好、舒適、幸福的生活。這是一種渴望，一種希望。很多人（包括大多數年輕的政治活躍保守派，他們因為同樣的原因而轉向「覺醒右翼」）會將這些混淆。他們認為他們擁有一個「人權」，即擁有美好的生活、舒適的生活、負擔得起的生活、幸福的生活，以及各種各樣的自由。但事實並非如此。他們有權利在大多數情況下不受國家干預或強大他人的干擾來追求這些目標。
While the Left gets this issue wrong in very important ways, this is where their pathological feeling of being trapped has a real foundation: the moralizing Right arguably does impinge upon their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by telling them they have to live their lives in certain ways.
Now, the Right will surely jump on this and morally preen to each other over it because we're literally talking about filicide, killing one's own children. No one actually has a right to filicide, but the Left is so psychotic about it that they're asserting it. That is, this conversation has already gone way off the rails. Preen all you want. You're right, but you've lost the point in seizing the opportunity to lick your own moral feathers.
The psychological underpinning is the same, though. The Left, both when right and wrong about the details, perceives the unjust restriction of an inalienable right, so they are reacting with reactance.
People experiencing reactance will go to extremes to reassert their perceived right (right or wrong about them). They will, for example, assert that they don't just have the right but a more expansive version of the right than they really do. They will act crazy, even physically violent, personally destructively, or incredibly performatively (for clicks?) to reassert this expansion of their perceived right when acting in reactance.
The Right will morally preen for one another at this point and accuse them of being evil and desiring to do evil things, moralizing them further. I'd say it's performative, but honest to God I think they can't not. I think it's part of the psychological constitution of being on the Right to do this, just as much as I think it's part of the psychological constitution on the Left to do the other thing. Either way, it increases the feeling of being trapped, losing "rights," and reactance.
The way we "got here" is many cycles of this playing out over and over and over again between social conservatives on the Right and radical feminists on the Left. My personal belief is that the Right was probably too restrictive in some ways, but the feminist Left's toxic "trapped by reality" worldview was the driver of the problem. In any case, more or less since the 1950s, this cycle has been ratcheting up to where you see what you see with regard to women supporting Lindsay Clancy.
雖然左派在很多重要方面都錯解了這個問題，但他們病態的被困感在這裡有真實的基礎：道德化的右翼實際上侵犯了他們追求幸福的不可剝奪的權利，因為他們告訴他們必須以某些方式生活。
現在，右派肯定會抓住這一點，互相道義上地炫耀，因為我們實際上是在談論殺害自己的孩子，也就是「兒童謀殺」。沒有人真正有權利謀殺自己的孩子，但左派對此病態到認為自己擁有這種權利。也就是說，這個討論已經完全偏離了正軌。你們可以盡情地互相炫耀。你們是對的，但你們錯過了利用這個機會來舔舐自己道德羽毛的機會。
然而，心理基礎是相同的。無論左派在細節上是正確還是錯誤，他們都認為自己的不可剝奪的權利受到了不公正的限制，因此他們會以反彈的方式做出反應。
當人們體驗到反彈時，他們會採取極端措施來重新聲張他們所感知的權利（無論這種權利是否真實存在）。例如，他們可能會聲稱自己不僅擁有某項權利，而且擁有一種比實際更廣泛的權利。為了重新聲張這種擴展的、他們所感知的權利，當他們處於反彈狀態時，他們會表現出瘋狂行為，甚至可能採取肢體暴力、自我毀滅行為，或者進行極其誇張的表演（以獲取點擊數？）。
到這個時候，右派會互相道義上地炫耀，指責他們是邪惡的，並且渴望做邪惡的事情，進一步對他們進行道德譴責。我可能會說這是一種表演，但老實說，我覺得他們真的無法不這樣做。我認為，對於身處右翼的人來說，這已經成為一種心理構成的一部分，就像我認為對於身處左翼的人來說，做另一件事也是如此。無論如何，這都會加劇被困的感覺、失去「權利」以及反彈。
我們之所以會「走到這裡」，是因為這種循環在右派的社會保守主義者和左派的激進女權主義者之間不斷重複發生的許多次。我個人的看法是，右派可能在某些方面過於限制，但女權主義左派那種有毒的「被現實束縛」的世界觀才是問題的根源。總之，自 1950 年代以來，這個循環一直在加劇，導致我們現在看到關於女性支持Lindsay Clancy的情況。
(6) Can anything be done about it? / 對此可以做些什麼嗎？
No.
Nothing can be done about this. The Left sees the world this way so deeply now that it's horrifying and batshit insane. The Right cannot help itself, and honestly has very few other options, but to morally preen for each other and moralize at the Left, increasing the problem.
The Right also firmly refuses to understand that the driver of the whole problem is that the Left feels trapped, sometimes in real ways and mostly in now deeply pathological ways. They would feel complicit in immorality to even admit the Left has a perspective that can be described in any terms other than rank evil. (Again, I don't think the Left's perspective is right or even valid, but it what it is and has some valid underpinnings that in theory could be approached and addressed in better ways.)
The Left will believe moralizing reinforces the trap they perceive to be their lives, and the Right will moralize about their reactions to feeling trapped. That's the cycle. That's the dynamic. Welcome to hell. Isn't the dialectic fun?
不。
對於這種情況，已經沒有任何辦法可以改變了。左派現在對世界的看法如此深刻，以至於令人恐懼和瘋狂。右派也無法自拔，而且誠實地說，他們除了互相道義上地炫耀並對左派進行道德譴責之外，幾乎沒有其他選擇，這只會加劇問題。
此外，右派堅決拒絕理解整個問題的根源是左派感到被困住了，有時是真實的，但大多是現在非常病態的方式。即使承認左派的觀點可以用任何除了「純粹邪惡」之外的其他術語來描述，他們也會覺得自己參與了不道德行為。（再次強調，我不認為左派的觀點是正確或有效的，但這是它所是的，並且有一些在理論上可以被更好地理解和解決的有效基礎。）
左派會認為道義上的譴責強化了他們所感知的困境，而右派則會對他們因感到被困而產生的反應進行道德譴責。這就是循環。這就是動態。歡迎來到地獄。辯證法很有趣嗎？
(7) To repeat, the driver of this entire situation is that the Left feels trapped, unjustly by human-constructed systems, in a world that they hate and fear, which they did not choose, and which they believe could be escaped except for the Right. / 再次強調，導致整個局面的根本原因是左派感到被困住了，這種被困是因人類建立的體系造成的，他們對這個世界充滿憎恨和恐懼，而且他們沒有選擇這個世界，並且他們認為如果不是因為右派，他們本可以擺脫這種困境。
That is, they're what I call "Sociognostics." Gnostics whose "spiritual" realm of control by a false evil power posing as the fundamental ground of all reality is sociality and society itself.
Until you understand this about them, there is no conversation that starts to unwind this problem and its profound dysfunction and increasing psychosis. There is only more of the dynamic at hand and an ever widening gyre against which the center cannot hold.
也就是說，他們是「社會靈知派」。他們是那些認為自己被一種虛假的邪惡力量所控制的「靈性」領域的人，而這種力量偽裝成所有現實的基本根源，而那邪惡力量實際上就是社會性和社會本身。
除非你理解這一點，否則任何討論都無法開始解決這個問題及其深刻的功能失調和日益加劇的精神病態。只有更多當前的動態，以及一個不斷擴大的漩渦，而中心將無法維持。