12 Commandments: For Extraordinary People To Master Ordinary Life Book club

[ertyu]

I see . I guess I'll have to accept that I am too uncool to get the point, and definitely "not it" haha. Whatever there they're doing with the image and personality they've created for this Hanzi character completely went over my head.

Now actually on topic to the thread: based on what you guys have read so far in the 12 commandments, how applicable do you find the advice outside of the strong support bubble of the nordic welfare states?

[AxelHeyst]

I found the book (I finished it) resonated strongly with me and my country of residence/it's social support mechanisms are irrelevant as far as I can tell. I haven't fully processed it yet, but just a few top of head highlights:

.The whole gist of sublime mediocrity spoke to me at multiple levels. He (they, ha) Gordian Knotted the whole "how to strive to accomplish things in the world without blowing up your ego about it and recognizing that nothing actually matters (#ayylmao) and being okay with not being what you thought you would be but realizing that you can be so much more than that" issue.

.The other level is his discussion of 'the sound of both ands clapping', aka ironic sincerity:

How does being sincerely ironic empower us, then? Think about it. If you internalize the ironic ridicule of others before theyhave a chance of applying it to you, you can more easily shrug it off: you can work from a place of near invulnerability, and thus dare to be truly vulnerable: and thus bravely constructive, finding and suggesting new pathways for yourself and society. Mastery over irony, turned-on-itself, allows for new sincerity. And extreme sincerity becomes the sharpest weapon of irony, because it's so damn outrageous.

I've been to the end of sincerity and I've been to the end of irony and they were dead ends. This both and take on them is something I've never put together and it feels like at least another step forward, a way to have some kind of peace with my actions without drowning in the despair of pure irony nor flaming myself out in naive and useless sincerity.

He gets into this further with his notion of first red pilling yourself AND THEN taking multiple blue bills and combine the results (sort of).

.I like his idea of cosmoeroticism as a way of understanding/framing ambition without shaming it.

."Don't minimize conflict, minimize resentment." Nice.

.He discussed a variety of ways in which to examine and question yourself wrt how the majority of people think they're smarter, more moral, and more informed than the average person. "It's a question we should all ask ourselves from time to time: 'What if I'm not the underdog?"

.His chapter on burn the maps was a great addition to the discussion we have here on the forum about theory vs. practice.

My guess is a very large part of people "on a mission" would make the world better by simply giving up on their dumb mission in the first place. Are you one of them? What are your dreams and drives and what core assumptions are they based upon? Trying to get rich and raising a large family will make us all happy? Will it? Releasing yourself from the clutches of capitalist consumerism will make you authentic and a better person? Will it? Fighting for stopping climate change means you're always the good guy? Does it?

Wouldn't the world be better off if people worked harder on trying to get a better grasp on the world, and so came up with increasingly suitable goals?

^^Speaking for myself here: oof.

"The world doesn't need preachers and proselytes - it needs ironic prophets, the believers who don't quit believe themselves, because they trust in a reality bigger than themselves. The earth will be inhereted, then, not by the meek, but by the sublimely mediocre."

Then some advise on therapy: "The best therapy is likely to be the one that most challenges your world map." e.g. for people who tend to be very smart and intellectualilze everything, maybe (MAYBE) a better choice of therapy would be something like somatic therapy.


.Probably the thing that stuck in my head most powerfully on my first read of it was his discussion around forgiveness, how deep/radical forgiveness is sort of the whole point, and part of the path there is justice, and part of that is (I'm paraphrasing) letting your emotions complete themselves about things that have happened by finally admitting that some shit that happened to you was Not Okay. Like, how can you begin to forgive someone/the world if part of your coping mechanism was denying that someone did something to you that was unjust? That I was treated wrongly? A common mechanism that I definitely see in myself was either internalizing the hurts "I must have deserved that somehow" or excusing the person "they had a hard childhood, they don't understand that they're hurting me", but as some point it's important to be able to admit even if just to myself that I Was Wronged and That Was Not Okay.

"Forgiveness is something you do for you; it means letting go of resentment, rumination, and prolonged inner self-harm. ..."

[7Wannabe5]

I have also finished the book, and I agree with much of AxelHeyst's take. However, I would note that some of the chapters resonated more strongly with me than others.

I found myself disagreeing a bit with Hanzi's suggestion to express anger more openly, but this might be due to my own life experience of too often dealing with reactive ragers. As in:

1) I recognize that it is not good to avoid conflict, because will breed resentment.
2) I express a problem clearly and rationally.
3) Other party yells very loudly and breaks a counter-top.
4) I experience physical cowardice and cease my line of argument.

[jacob]

I found myself disagreeing a bit with Hanzi's suggestion to express anger more openly, but this might be due to my own life experience of too often dealing with reactive ragers.

In the Danish (perhaps Scandinavian) culture of the Hanzis, expressing anger by raising your voice is seen as lack of self control. It's considered childish and immature and people quickly lose respect for anyone who still acts that way past the age of 3-5. This loss is not just between those who happen to be angry at each other. There are extended social consequences for someone who gets known for "flipping out". "Viking" anger shows in the opposite of what you seen in many other cultures where raising your voice is a sign of passion or dominance. The angry viking becomes a "professional warrior" lowering their voice and removing all emotional display in a demonstration of self-control in proportion to how angry they are.

And then subsequently deal with any and all the emotional stuff in a very passive-aggressive way which can linger unresolved for years... which is probably what Hanzi would like to see an alternative to. I remember the first time I ran into arguments with cultures where raising your voice is a sign that you really believe in your position. I thought them raising their voice meant they were acting like an idiot, whereas they likely thought my low voice meant I was being insincere. When I tried raising my voice, the argument quickly resolved. It was like magic.

[Frita]

@5W7 and @Jacob

My mom’s family is Swedish. Having temper tantrums was not okay once someone started going to school. But the only acceptable emotion was being happy and perhaps surprised, assuming it was a good one. Anxiety, fear, anger, and disgust were acted out; many times in passive aggressive and/or self-destructive ways. My grandma, who helped raise me after my dad died (ages 9-14), was able to talk about things and more functional/balanced.

My dad’s family was Welsh. Constant anxiety, temper-tantrums, and violence were as common as the red hair. Passive aggressiveness and self-destructiveness were common. They were just as externally-controlled as my mom’s family.

Anyway, there is a balance and range of skillful responses. Acting like a preschooler, a child, or a teenager is acceptable when at that age. I can speak up about my observations and emotions. I can make a request. The response (words AND actions) will determine if and how the relationship continues. Purposefully choosing to be around (tolerating?) people who refuse to take personal responsibility (functioning on either extreme) just sucks me into the drama vortex. I had that as a kid. Yuck. No, thanks.

[guitarplayer]

I imagine this ‘Nordic’ attitude also occurs in Switzerland where at least half of Hanzi spends a significant amount of time.

[AxelHeyst]

This is so interesting. If you had asked me "Did Hanzi write anything about anger in his book?" I'd have said "Nope, maybe in passing but no not really." Whatever he said about it didn't stick to me. I'll re-read it and try to figure out why.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob @Frita @AxelHeyst:

Here's the bit that bothered me. It is found in the chapter "Fuck Like a Beast" , which I, obviously, agree with as a general theme.

The same goes, naturally, for negative and socially difficult emotions. Our inhibitions of rage and aggression also keep us in check and hinder a sense of aliveness. When was the last time you allowed yourself to truly express your anger towards someone who wronged you? I don't mean telling someone in a mature, well-reasoned manner that you're not pleased with their behavior, but truly telling someone what you feel here and now without holding back from showing your anger, without feeling ashamed of it?

I mean, I grok that his intended audience must be those who tend towards repression, but as somebody who has frequently erred on the side of finding herself in relationships with men who temperamentally resemble Yosemite Sam, ergo likely to answer the first question above with "About 5 minutes ago, when that A-Hole in front of me didn't take a left turn into the fucking traffic fast enough", I am done with it.

OTOH, maybe I am the one who should take Hanzi's advice, because it has occured to me that there is a slight possibility that there is something about the way those who are more overtly aggressive than me get stuff done that I like. Unfortunately, I'm not really holding anger or resentment towards anybody in particular in the moment, so the best I could likely do would be something like maybe continuing my campaign on behalf of the significantly pear-shaped against the reductionist structural violence of VO2/kg metrics as basis for organ transplant qualification while invoking more emotional depth in my argumentation. However, I am aware that since this forum is hosted by somebody of Scandinavian origin, such behavior may result in my expulsion.

[ertyu]

I disagree with the above passage as well. To me, the solution is not to externalize. Those who externalize and those who are calm-but-repressed then passive-agressive in holding their grudges are two sides of the same coin: not processing your anger within yourself. I haven't been in relationships with the sort of men 7w5 describes but I had one as a father, and I swore I would never, ever, become one. To me, the above advice misses the mark. The anger should be faced, dealt with, and processed during the alleged three hours our hanzi spends meditating daily in his bathrobe in his billionaire-funded chalet (*). You can then proceed to tell people "I find this hurtful / unfair / inefficient / whatever" and actually use your actual words to sort out whatever the issue is.

* from the listening society -- mentioned twice in the first half of the book.

[AxelHeyst]

Ertyu, the spirit of your critique is fully addressed at a deep level and even kind of the whole point of the book (forgiveness beginning with an internally derived sense of justice etc).

That passage isn't for people like your father or 7's Yosemite Sam partners, because they aren't people who are dealing with inhibitions.

I'll also note that Hanzi isn't recommending that anyone loudly externalize their anger: he's asking you to reflect on the last time you did. Have you ever? Are you capable of expressing your anger outwardly without shame? The answer is what is interesting.

[AxelHeyst]

Not to belabor the point, but I went back and skimmed that chapter. It's a whole nuanced investigation of inhibition in society and the balancing act we play between too few and too many inhibitions, and he's challenging the reader to ask some hard questions related to their own sense of self, their sense of being worthy of standing up for oneself, etc. It's entirely appropriate for that passage to rub someone the wrong way as it did 7... But notice her self inquiry as a result of it!

Maybe we can refrain from commenting critically on short passages with no context?

[Slevin]

Agreed. A good practice is to steelman a position before trying to argue against it, and its clearly impossible when you have decided the stance (against Hanzi) and then take things out of context to build the framing. I understand the book isn't available to you through the normal channels, which complicates doing such a thing, but maybe its best to go pull up the thread about the "Listening Society" to argue about positions in the "Listening Society". Scaling and systems theory dictates that the single player approach has to fit into the systems level world fixing approach, but there is a LOT of distance and ground between the books.

I'm flip-flopping between reading this book and reading "What's our Problem" by Tim Urban (and doing insanely technical and challenging coding design/implementation work and design / manual labor for gardens, etc as the bulk of my days, stealing 95% of the energy) so I haven't made as much progress as I would like (and also I like to savor books like this, arguments like this are best gnawed on IMO). I'm only in section "Turn workout into prayer", which I find Hanzi generally less informed than I am and I have general disagreements with the chapter. That said, I've gained LOADS of value just from the chapter "Fuck like a beast" which advocates both fucking like a beast (which has been well received) and also spending a lot of time with your inner child who still feels wonder and happiness and value in the world to try and get all those feelings back.

I'm also very interested in the sincere irony chapter (both ANDs clapping from above), which is how I describe my general mindset of existence. I know things are broken in certain ways that I can't fix and give me insane anxiety and yet I still have to live here and I'm also going to choose to be happy through informed naivety. If enough of us understand and also break the normal reality everyone wants to see, society may shift a little bit with us (Overton window shift). This is the way (read in tinny helmet voice).

IMO Best advice in the book so far: If you picked up this book, prioritize 2 units of healing per unit of self development.

[ertyu]

I understand the book isn't available to you through the normal channels, which complicates doing such a thing

good point. i'll hold back from this thread until i've read it.

[7Wannabe5]

I'll also note that Hanzi isn't recommending that anyone loudly externalize their anger: he's asking you to reflect on the last time you did. Have you ever? Are you capable of expressing your anger outwardly without shame? The answer is what is interesting...

It's entirely appropriate for that passage to rub someone the wrong way as it did 7... But notice her self inquiry as a result of it!

Well, it is my mid-life developed practice to question my reactions in search of personal growth, while also keeping in mind that 50/50 distribution of fault is actually quite rare I grok that my verbal sparring skills and stamina may at times drive my "opponents" to the edge where they can only express their anger and frustration via inarticulate displays of physical carnage upon furniture and the like, so it has lately become my practice to simply leave the environment, and continue to make my point via text IFF they choose to contact me. IOW, it's not that I am ashamed to express my anger; it's just that it is rare for me to raise my voice while spontaneously composing and presenting my next or final argument. Also, I am more likely to burst into tears than yell and break things if terribly provoked in a surprising manner.

I haven't been in relationships with the sort of men 7w5 describes but I had one as a father, and I swore I would never, ever, become one.

I feel for you. My mother is in her 80s and quite decrepit. Just last week, my sister and I were visiting with her, and she remarked, "I don't know how you girls turned out to be so nice when I am such a bitch.", with the clear sub-text that we are "weak" compared to her. I also vowed to never become a rager like my mother, but at some point in mid-life I realized that when it comes to disowning a parent, you have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I still believe that the habit of raging (which does give physiological pleasure* to the rager) is net destructive, but I also sometimes choose to channel my "does not give a fuck" mother when I have to do something like public speaking.

I like to savor books like this

I agree that this is a book worth savoring and look forward to a chapter by chapter discussion. I read it simultaneous to "Bernoulli's Legacy"(which shreds 20th century statistics, inclusive of influence in fields such as sociology) and binge watching "Shrill". so may have informed my perspective. I'm thinking that Hanzi is kind of riffing a bit on how sociology started out with the exaltation of the "average" man before turning to the "exceptional" with his concept of "sublime mediocrity."

*And, therefore, as with sexuality, should also not be completely repressed, as Hanzi argues.