I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT MUMBLECORE

Uh... Uhm.... I feel like.... I mean.... Uhhh... Like, I mean... It's just, like... you know... Uhhh... I'm just really confused right now... about, like... things? You know?

ALSO BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLIER "MOVIES" THAT WERE LATER CATEGORIZED AS "MUMBLECORE", THE AUDIO WAS SUBOPTIMAL.

Do you like Mumblecore, KOZ? What are your favourites? I use the term loosely, of course, and you can broaden it to mean whatever you want it to mean --not just the confederation of directors associated, but also early influences and later films. I like Whit Stillman (not strictly Mumblecore, but you can see the parallels). Hannah Takes The Stairs is terrible.

>Do you like Mumblecore, KOZ?

YES, OR AT LEAST I USED TO LIKE IT, BEFORE IT DECAYED.

>What are your favourites?

— "LOL" (2006).

— "MUMBLECORE" (2011).

— "THE PUFFY CHAIR".

— "BAGHEAD".

— "JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME".

— "YOU'RE NEXT".

— "THE COLOR WHEEL".

— "THE INTERVENTION" (SHORT, 2005).

— "WENDY, AND LUCY".

— "NIGHT MOVES" (2013).

— "ME YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW".

— "CREEP" (2014).

— "YEAST".

— "THE DISH & THE SPOON".

What did, or do, you like about it?

Questions of authenticity and sincerity are a vast entrapment, a maze of mirrors, and the movement smacked of a terrible neuroticism --neurotic Woody Allen and neurotic Noah Baumbach embodying the essence of the movement.

>What did, or do, you like about it?

ITS AUTHENTICITY, SINCERITY, AND INTIMACY.

>Questions of authenticity and sincerity are a vast entrapment, a maze of mirrors...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

>... and the movement smacked of a terrible neuroticism...

I CONCUR IN THAT THERE WAS A SUBCURRENT OF NEUROTICISM, DUE TO MANY OF THE AUTEURS OF "MUMBLECORE" ARE JEWISH, BUT THE AUTHENTICITY, SINCERITY, AND INTIMACY, PONDERATE OVER IT.

>... neurotic Woody Allen and neurotic Noah Baumbach embodying the essence of the movement.

ALLAN STEWART KONIGSBERG DOES NOT "EMBODY THE ESSENCE OF 'MUMBLECORE'" —DESPITE ALLAN STEWART KONIGSBERG IS INAUTHENTIC AND INSINCERE.

NOAH BAUMBACH IS AN IMITATOR, THEREFORE, HE DOES NOT "EMBODY THE ESSENCE OF 'MUMBLECORE'" EITHER.

>... DUE TO MANY OF THE AUTEURS OF "MUMBLECORE" [BEING] JEWISH...

ALSO, I THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO SUBCURRENTS IN "MUMBLECORE" THAT MAY BE MUTUALLY CONFLATED: PATHOLOGICAL NEUROSIS (JEWISH), AND IMPULSIVE RESTLESSNESS (ARYAN).

Mumblecore is fucking cancer and a step back in the art of filmmaking

The very essence of Mumblecore is neuroticism in that it is questioning authenticity and sincerity. I say it's a maze of mirrors because once you start questioning what authenticity and sincerity are, when you start saying some things aren't authentic, aren't sincere, you bewilder yourself. You become self-conscious of your own authenticity and inauthenticity, which are difficult to understand and maintain, and you lose them. It is the nature of consciousness -- ever elusive.

What do you mean by authentic and inauthentic?

>I say it's a maze of mirrors because once you start questioning what authenticity and sincerity are, when you start saying some things aren't authentic, aren't sincere, you bewilder yourself. You become self-conscious of your own authenticity and inauthenticity, which are difficult to understand and maintain, and you lose them. It is the nature of consciousness -- ever elusive.

I DISAGREE; THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS AUTHENTIC, AND WHAT IS INAUTHENTIC, AND BETWEEN WHAT IS SINCERE, AND WHAT IS INSINCERE, IS CLEAR TO ME; SELFCONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT HINDER, BUT ON THE CONTRARY, IT ALLOWS FOR PROACTIVE ACTUATION, OR IMPROVEMENT.

>What do you mean by authentic and inauthentic?

AUTHENTICITY IS THE QUALITY OF ACTION, SPEECH, THOUGHT, AND/OR FEELING, WITH PERSONAL AUTHORITY, IN CONCORD WITH ONE'S OWN ETHOS.

INAUTHENTICITY IS THE QUALITY OF ACTION, SPEECH, THOUGHT, AND/OR FEELING, WITH NO PERSONAL AUTHORITY, NOT IN CONCORD WITH ONE'S OWN ETHOS.

>something interesting happens
Uuhhhh... what? Huh? I mean, talk about WOW. I've got no angle, just, wow.

Okay but you're obviously a person who writes in all caps in order to obscure their delivery. I think this indicates a lack of social cooperation, and an externalized desire not to be interpretered 'normally'.

t. sci-fi cuck

You have exchanged the difficult, abstruse abstract of authenticity for the difficult, abstruse abstracts of ethos and authority.

No ethos is your own. Where does it come from and why subscribe to it? Often it's a temporary and shifting thing, and even more often it's a disguise put over a self-serving agenda. People who think themselves genuinely committed to their ethos strike me as lacking awareness of their own thoughts and behaviour.

To define authenticity to mean asserting your own ethos through your personal authority just means to act in any capacity as anything other than a thought-conditioned slave. Most people probably feel they are authentic, then, and feel they are acting in concordance with their ethos by the power of their personal authenticity.

Can you provide some examples of authentic and inauthentic acts, as well as explain why you why Woody Allen is inauthentic?

>You have exchanged the difficult, abstruse abstract of authenticity for the difficult, abstruse abstracts of ethos and authority.

NONE OF THESE CONCEPTS ARE DIFFICULT, OR ABSTRUSE.

>No ethos is your own.

MY ETHOS IS MY OWN.

>Where does it come from and why subscribe to it?

IT IS IMMANENT, IT LINKS WITH THE ABSOLUTE VIA SOFIA, AND ONE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO IT IF ONE IS TO ACHIEVE PERSONAL FULFILLMENT, IMPROVEMENT OF THE WORLD, AND TRANSCENDENCE OF KOSMOS.

>Often it's a temporary and shifting thing, and even more often it's a disguise put over a self-serving agenda.

YOU ARE CONFLATING RATIONAL EXPEDIENCY WITH ETHICOMORAL EXCELLENCE.

>People who think themselves genuinely committed to their ethos strike me as lacking awareness of their own thoughts and behaviour.

YOU ARE CONFLATING UNCONSCIOUS AND UNSELFAWARE IMPRUDENCE WITH SELFCONSCIOUS IMPERATIVE IMPULSE.

WHEN ONE KNOWS WHAT MUST BE DONE, HOW SOME THING SHOULD BE, AND WHAT IS OPTIMAL, ONE IS IMPELLED TO ACTION WITH CARDINALITY THAT MAY BE MISJUDGED BY OTHERS AS "IRRATIONAL BOLDNESS", "RASHNESS", "FOOLISHNESS", OR AS YOU CALL IT "LACK OF AWARENESS OF OWN THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIOUR".

>To define authenticity to mean asserting your own ethos through your personal authority just means to act in any capacity as anything other than a thought-conditioned slave. Most people probably feel they are authentic, then, and feel they are acting in concordance with their ethos by the power of their personal authenticity.

MOST INDIVIDUALS ARE SELFDELUDED; MOST INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT EVEN PERSONS.

>Can you provide some examples of authentic and inauthentic acts, as well as explain why you why Woody Allen is inauthentic?

DISCERNING OF AUTHENTICITY, OR OF INAUTHENTICITY, IS CONTINGENT TO THE PARTICULAR THING BEING JUDGED AT THE MOMENT, SINCE NO ACTION IN ITSELF, IN GENERAL, IS EITHER AUTHENTIC, OR INAUTHENTIC; A THING IS AUTHENTIC IF IT ORIGINATES FROM THE AUTHOR'S PERSONALITY.

ALLAN STEWART KONIGSBERG IS INAUTHENTIC, BECAUSE HIS STYLE IS DERIVATIVE AND IMITATIVE OF FRENCH "NOUVELLE VAGUE", AND HE IS INSINCERE, BECAUSE HIS STYLE, PERSONA, AND OPERA, ARE CONTRIVED, INSUBSTANTIAL, FALSE, AND BECAUSE HE IS DISHOSNEST REGARDING THE FALSITY OF HIS STYLE, OF HIS PERSONA, AND OF HIS OPERA, ATTEMPTING TO POSE IRONIC CYNICISM AS EARNEST SINCERITY.

You tell me the concept of ethos isn't difficult or abstruse, but asked about it, you tell me, "IT IS IMMANENT, IT LINKS WITH THE ABSOLUTE VIA SOFIA, AND ONE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO IT IF ONE IS TO ACHIEVE PERSONAL FULFILLMENT, IMPROVEMENT OF THE WORLD, AND TRANSCENDENCE OF KOSMOS," -- surely you realise that *your* ethos is a strange metaphysical conception, Hegelian or Crowleyian, abstruse and difficult.

What I imagine you believe, then, is that the Absolute is immanent within consciousness, and the ethos of people varies, but it is part of the manifestation of the Absolute in its many forms. Inauthentic people, then, are fundamentally Satanic --people choosing to ignore the immanent Absolute within, choosing to ignore their ethos? Again --how do you determine someone is inauthentic?

This is what I mean that questioning authenticity leads to a maze of mirrors --look where we've ended up.

>ALLAN STEWART KONIGSBERG IS INAUTHENTIC, BECAUSE HIS STYLE IS DERIVATIVE AND IMITATIVE OF FRENCH "NOUVELLE VAGUE", AND HE IS INSINCERE, BECAUSE HIS STYLE, PERSONA, AND OPERA, ARE CONTRIVED, INSUBSTANTIAL, FALSE, AND BECAUSE HE IS DISHOSNEST REGARDING THE FALSITY OF HIS STYLE, OF HIS PERSONA, AND OF HIS OPERA, ATTEMPTING TO POSE IRONIC CYNICISM AS EARNEST SINCERITY.

Your metaphysical conceptions are derivative of Hegel or Crowley --or wherever you've got them. It doesn't make you inauthentic. Everything is, in a sense, derivative of everything else, and since we are all manifestations of the Absolute as it undergoes its own othering, Woody Allen is just part of the developmental process. Maybe his contrivance, insubstantiality are part of the ethos bestowed on him by the immanent Absolute? And by your own definitions, it's possible for an ironic cynicism to be perfectly sincere --if he asserts it through his ethos by his personal authority.

>You tell me the concept of ethos isn't difficult or abstruse, but asked about it, you tell me, "IT IS IMMANENT, IT LINKS WITH THE ABSOLUTE VIA SOFIA, AND ONE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO IT IF ONE IS TO ACHIEVE PERSONAL FULFILLMENT, IMPROVEMENT OF THE WORLD, AND TRANSCENDENCE OF KOSMOS,"...

YES.

>... surely you realise that *your* ethos is a strange metaphysical conception, Hegelian or Crowleyian, abstruse and difficult.

1. ALEISTER CROWLEY IS NOT AN INFLUENCE ON ME.

2. ETHOS ITSELF IS NOT MERELY A CONCEPT, BUT IT IS METAPHYSICAL; THE FACT THAT SOME THING IS METAPHYSICAL DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT THAT THING IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND, ABSTRUSE, OR NOT CONCRETE/NOT DISTINCT.

>What I imagine you believe, then, is that the Absolute is immanent within consciousness...

NO.

THE ABSOLUTE —ID EST: GOD— IS NOT IMMANENT, BUT METAMANENT —IT STANDS FLOWING BEYOND ALL—; WHAT IS IMMANENT IS ONE'S ETHOS, AND THE LINK TOWARD THE ABSOLUTE/GOD.

>... and the ethos of people varies, but it is part of the manifestation of the Absolute in its many forms.

ETHOS IS NOT A MANIFESTATION OF THE ABSOLUTE/GOD; IT IS AN ASPECT, OR SUBORDINATE COMPONENT, OF SOUL.

>Inauthentic people, then, are fundamentally Satanic --people choosing to ignore the immanent Absolute within, choosing to ignore their ethos?

YES, BUT NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE "SATANIC" ARE UNETHICAL; SOME INDIVIDUALS ARE ETHICOMORALLY MALEVOLENT.

>Again --how do you determine someone is inauthentic?

VIA INTUITION, AND DISCERNMENT —IT IS A SUPRARATIONAL PROCESS.

>This is what I mean that questioning authenticity leads to a maze of mirrors --look where we've ended up.

THIS IS DUE TO YOUR LACK OF COMPREHENSION, WHICH LEAD TO EXPLICATION, AND TO EXPLANATION.

>Your metaphysical conceptions are derivative of Hegel or Crowley --or wherever you've got them.

NOT REALLY.

>Everything is, in a sense, derivative of everything else...

NOT REALLY.

>... and since we are all manifestations of the Absolute as it undergoes its own othering...

1. THE ABSOLUTE/GOD DOES NOT OTHER ITSELF, BUT GENERATES FROM ITSELF.

2. NOT ALL ENTITIES ARE FROM THE ABSOLUTE/GOD.

>Maybe his [ALLAN STEWART KONIGSBERG'S] contrivance, insubstantiality are part of the ethos bestowed on him by the immanent Absolute?

MAYBE, BUT THE FACT THAT HE CHOOSES TO CONCEAL HIS TRUE PERSONALITY IS WHAT MAKES HIM INSINCERE.

>And by your own definitions, it's possible for an ironic cynicism to be perfectly sincere --if he asserts it through his ethos by his personal authority.

YES, BUT HE DOES NOT DO THAT, INSTEAD CHOOSING TO SIMULATE EARNEST SINCERITY.

>WHICH LEAD TO EXPLICATION, AND TO EXPLANATION.
Even now I comprehend the way in which you conceive authenticity and ethos it has only served to demonstrate the confusion of the matter to me. I do not subscribe to your beliefs, and in fact, I do not know what I believe. This is why authenticity is difficult. It inevitably leads to questions of God, and since those questions are impossible to answer satisfactorily, so are questions about authenticity --the result neuroticism. A lot of people behind mumblecore movies do not appear to do it with any certainty about what they believe either, and this is what I was concerned with originally --mumblecore doesn't, to me, appear to know its own soul.

I COMPREHEND YOUR UNCERTAINTY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU ARE "INFP", AND I CONCUR WITH YOU IN THAT "MUMBLECORE" IS A MOVEMENT WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF ITSELF, BUT THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ITS BEING AUTHENTIC, SINCERE, AND INTIMATE; SELFKNOWLEDGE ALLOWS FOR SELFDIRECTION, BUT LACK OF SELFKNOWLEDGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXERCISE OF ETHICOMORAL AUTHORITY —THE FOOL IS AS AUTHENTIC AND SINCERE AS THE WISE.

It's like Locke vs Demosthenes in here. IE samefaggery, but at least in the Platonic tradition.

Very good conversation --I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Your explanations are clear and concise, and even if I don't agree, I appreciate your lucidity.

Your Ethos is very similar to Kantian-Hegelian Duty and Crowley's True Will, which is why I believed they were the source. Who are the influences on your worldview?

Do I appear as an INFP to you? Extraverted intuition seems to be working more and more as my dominant function. --Notice my behaviour in this thread as I fuss over what you think as I attempt to gather new and interesting information.

>Very good conversation --I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

I HAVE ENJOYED CONVERSING WITH YOU ALSO.

>Who are the influences on your worldview?

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL IS A PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCE ON ME, BUT HE IS NOT AN INFLUENCE ON MY WORLDVIEW.

INFLUENCES ON MY WORLDVIEW INCLUDE: JESUS CHRIST, ADOLF HITLER, SAVITRI DEVI, AKHNATON, BUT DEVELOPMENT OF WORLDVIEW IS MOSTLY AN UNCONSCIOUS PROCESS THAT IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO PARTICULAR SOURCES.

>Do I appear as an INFP to you?

YES, AND I ALSO REMEMBER YOUR TEST RESULTS FROM SOME YEARS AGO.

>Extraverted intuition seems to be working more and more as my dominant function.

AS AN "INFP", YOUR PRIMARY FUNCTION WILL ALWAYS BE INTROVERTED FEELING; EXTRAVERTED INTUITION IS YOUR SECONDARY FUNCTION; YOUR SECONDARY FUNCTION IS NOT BECOMING YOUR PRIMARY FUNCTION; YOU ARE JUST DEVELOPING IT.

>AS AN "INFP", YOUR PRIMARY FUNCTION WILL ALWAYS BE INTROVERTED FEELING; EXTRAVERTED INTUITION IS YOUR SECONDARY FUNCTION; YOUR SECONDARY FUNCTION IS NOT BECOMING YOUR PRIMARY FUNCTION; YOU ARE JUST DEVELOPING IT.
Perhaps you know more about this than I do, since my only knowledge are reading the functions as explained by Jung. I can relate a great deal with Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Intuition, but it does not seem clear to me that I relate stronger to one than the other. I browsed some forums --looked at the associated memes-- and I relate more to ENFPs than INFPs, although both communities are seem deluded and oblivious --eager to present themselves as righteous. It seems plausible to me that a person's primary function can change over time, particularly between primary and secondary.

What do you type yourself as?

>tfw that Nazi mentally ill shitskin likes mumblecore
kek

>It seems plausible to me that a person's primary function can change over time, particularly between primary and secondary.

COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS DO NOT CHANGE OF ORDER.

>What do you type yourself as?

I AM "INTP".

What if Allen's neuroticism as portrayed in his films is a genuine representation of his inner world? Then, I think, he is super authentic. A guy like Goddard, for example, is inauthentic because he's concerned with the appearance of things. He dresses the minimal substance of what he has to say and delivers an inflated nothing.

>COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS DO NOT CHANGE OF ORDER.
How do you know? Our cognitive functions are just the process by which we structure our thoughts --getting information and what we do with it-- and of course we can change how we gather information, change what we do with it, change ourselves? Our lives are ongoing, and our experiences continue to define and re-define us.

Is it common for an INTP to have an eccentric, spiritual worldview? I don't remember how Introverted Thinking functions, but your idea of the immanent Absolute while internally consistent lacks empirical verification which, I imagine, would be very important to Introverted Thinking? Or is it only concerned with internal consistency?

>How do you know? Our cognitive functions are just the process by which we structure our thoughts --getting information and what we do with it-- and of course we can change how we gather information, change what we do with it, change ourselves? Our lives are ongoing, and our experiences continue to define and re-define us.

COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS ARE MODELS FOR NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL PATTERNS; UNLESS THAT YOUR NEUROPSYCHOLOGY IS RADICALLY ALTERED SOMEHOW, YOUR COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS WILL NOT CHANGE.

>Is it common for an INTP to have an eccentric, spiritual worldview?

DEFINE "ECCENTRIC SPIRITUAL WORLDVIEW".

>I don't remember how Introverted Thinking functions, but your idea of the immanent Absolute while internally consistent lacks empirical verification which, I imagine, would be very important to Introverted Thinking? Or is it only concerned with internal consistency?

EXTRAVERTED THINKING RELIES ON EMPIRICISM; INTROVERTED THINKING RELIES ON RATIONALISM.

INTROVERTED THINKING DISCERNS ESSENCE, ABSTRACTS, AND COGITATES; EXTRAVERTED THINKING DESCRIBES APPEARANCE, CONCRETIZES, AND IMPLEMENTS.

Such a change in cognitive function is only radical if it happens over one day. A person's neurology changes over time, very slowly, and there's nothing radical there. A career, for instance, in some field which uses the secondary function more than the primary --over years and years the cognitive patterns would favour the secondary.

Your worldview is eccentric in that it's different from the majority by a wide margin. You are the only person, as far as I know, who believes what you believe, and even those who hold similar beliefs to you are very rare. It's spiritual in that it's a belief in God. What rationally deduced proofs brought you to your conclusions?

>Such a change in cognitive function is only radical if it happens over one day. A person's neurology changes over time, very slowly, and there's nothing radical there.

RADICALITY IS THE QUALITY OF WHAT IS ESSENTIAL/FUNDAMENTAL.

YOU ARE CONFLATING RADICALITY WITH EXTREMITY, AND WITH SUDDENNESS.

>Your worldview is eccentric in that it's different from the majority by a wide margin. You are the only person, as far as I know, who believes what you believe, and even those who hold similar beliefs to you are very rare. It's spiritual in that it's a belief in God.

AH.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: I WOULD NOT KNOW SINCE I DO NOT KNOW ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT IS "INTP", BESIDE MYSELF, BUT I DO KNOW THAT INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE "INTP" TEND TO BE "ECCENTRIC".

I DO NOT THINK THAT SPIRITUALITY —OR LACK OF IT— IS FACTORED IN JUNGIAN/MYERS BRIGGS TYPOLOGY, THEREFORE, ONE SHOULD NOT ASSUME, OR CONCLUDE, THAT CERTAIN TYPES ARE MORE SPIRITUAL THAN OTHERS.

>What rationally deduced proofs brought you to your conclusions?

YOUR QUESTION PRESUPPOSES THAT I JUDGE BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE LIKE SOMEONE WITH EXTRAVERTED THINKING WOULD DO.

Why do you dilute one concept in so many sub-categories? Are you trying to appear to yourself as insightful by muddying the water?

>YOUR QUESTION PRESUPPOSES THAT I JUDGE BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE LIKE SOMEONE WITH EXTRAVERTED THINKING WOULD DO.
In what manner, then, did you discern the essences and abstracts of your worldview? --What brought you to these conclusions?

Most probably the writers he parrots without understanding

Excuse me?

BY COGITATING MEMORIES, KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION DERIVED FROM INTUITION, INFORMATION DERIVED FROM SENTIMENT, AND INFORMATION DERIVED FROM EXPERIENCE —MOST OF THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORLDVIEW OCCURS SPONTANEOUSLY, IN UNCONSCIOUS MANNER, THROUGH TIME —WORLDVIEW IS CORRELATED WITH ETHOS, THEREFORE, THE ROOT OF ONE'S WORLDVIEW IS IMMANENT; DEVELOPMENT OF WORLDVIEW IS ACCRETION AROUND THE INCHOATE CORE.

...