Self-tolerance

IQ measures the intelligence of an individual within a society. Emotional intelligence is a measure of a person’s ability to identify their emotions as well as the emotions of others and can calibrate their behaviors appropriately. But what is the measures one’s autonomy within a given society? It is said that “your rights end where another’s begins.” But what happens when one insists you fight in petty or trivial encounter? Society rewards those who don’t care to be bothered and don’t engage despite being insulted. In fact, this individual disengages with the “spirit of the game.” In this essay, I will critique this behavior as I believe it is affecting society’s ability to address mental wellbeing properly. Self-tolerance is a measure of one’s personal autonomy and one’s ability to recognize it even if one’ society represses them. A person with low self-tolerance does not mean that they are at a lower end of a spectrum compared with a person with a high degree of self-tolerance. A person with a low self-tolerance is given no spectrum to work with. A person with a high degree does not mean that they get to choose which issues they deem high enough to be important and which issues they deem of low importance. A person with high degree of self-tolerance is able to take a small issue and can blow it up to epic proportions. A person with low self-tolerance is stuck with small issues being small but are treated as big nonetheless. A low self-tolerance individual creates a work-around for the entire issue and it leads towards revenge fantasies

With technology becoming more accessible, we are become more exposed to a wide array of situations that, under any normal circumstance, we could never become exposed to. One of the most frustrating situations we can encounter in life are the public demonstrations of emotional meltdowns with complete strangers. There seems to be an endless stream of all kinds of people in every form of setting who use this form of public catharsis. The public freak out phenomena is the closest to an acceptable form of public release in front a live audience. Some observers don’t mind witnessing the mayhem.

A subject exists to be scapegoat to an assailant who performs the purge. This ritual seems to be a temporary cure from living in a “properly” mannered society. Let’s take a proper look at all the components of a Public Freak-out. A public freak-out usually revolves around a small, trivial issue that can be resolved rather swiftly. But this is not entirely true. There are legitimates issues that can justify a public outcry. A public freak-out must contain a kind of surrender that is easily accessible and be done as a gesture of grandeur. It is a small decision to eject from the situation because someone chose to de-escalate or leave all together.

The narrative that we have created in our society is that developed nations are intolerant to be caught up in these small things because they are seen as low-class. A properly mannered society must act with a code-of-conduct that reflect the striving for heroic and worthy battles. So, we’re always on the lookout for these ideal situations that reflect our heroic ideal. Even the public act of drawing attention to one’s meltdown is itself seen as bold even though it is frowned upon because of its way too easy to attain revenge for a small thing that was public. The public deserves a better class of miscreant. Which is right. These two contradictory things cannot stand in the face of people for very long before someone declares a winner.

Part 1: psychologism

Everyone experiences rage or anger at some point in their lives. It is often associated with an imbalanced mental state. Maybe they are mentally unstable or has a mental disorder. For the average, everyday individual, an involuntary motor response could explain the lapse of judgement when they decided to go off on another individual. Maybe they could not bear it any longer. Maybe they were suppressing emotion deep down. Might’ve it been a different day with different circumstances, could they have “rolled it off their shoulders,” as they say.  But it happened too quickly, at the wrong time. And it exploded. I mean it happens to everyone at some point so could these situations not be excused or tolerated?

Could we excuse an entire city filled with tens of thousands of people who all live together to act with manners.

Let’s watch a milder form of a public freak-out. It’s not technically a public freak-out because it’s an interaction between three individuals. There is no infuriating rage, no shouting, no threats of violence between them. But the fact that it’s being recorded on a cellular device means that a person intends to have it be seen by an audience . Again, here we have technology providing everyone with highly viral platforms through a smartphone that highly accessible to the general public.

Immediately, the young manager responds non-threatening. He is clearly introspective and an active listener. For convenience sake, we are going to assume that he has high emotional intelligence.

What makes him interesting as a heroic figure is his stoic posture. It makes us ask what bigger issues to bothers him in life. We turn to the perpetrator and ask why does he attack the manager as if he wants to inflict a painful memory? As if he wants the manager to remember this moment. Is it because his intolerance allows him to stoop down to low level? I don’t think so. Yes, the issue of the pregnant woman working outside is a prescient issue to some people and the perpetrator finds an opportunity to be heroic. Something else that isn’t his phone is recording as well. It is desire that is being recorded, more specifically, it is the desire to obtain revenge. He wants to record something that isn’t already connected enough to carry weight on its own. If it were connected than the issue would communicate itself to be too obvious and it would “fix itself.” There’s a reason why someone found a need to in-script a cost as if debt needed to be paid off. Someone had to pay. So, in the hegemonic surface exists some connections that are not matching which would require another surface where proper inscription can happen. And what better place to record a painful memory than the young manager’s body. Technically, it is his physiognomy that can involuntarily give out an acknowledgement that a pain-memory has successfully been inscribed. But the young manager doesn’t entertain those attempts to be inscribed a memory because he carries himself with low self-tolerance. The manager instead creates a surface were connections are way too accessible so that inscriptions are not needed but, nonetheless are still being produced as surplus. This surplus is handled as excess life of which needs excess force to help glide across the surface below in virtue of a code. Remember, what’s the reason that the perpetrator brings up as an explanation? It is greed. “Pure Greed,” he concludes, accusing the manager of enjoying an excessive life that was unwarranted by making a profit. He accesses the manager of seizing a flow of enjoyment loosely connected by running an establishment. The codes that allow the surplus life to flow from one object (the establishment) to another object (the manager) is the exact same force that allow money to lose its ambiguity for it to be an accessible tool of trade and becoming unambiguous. This the role of the productive code. This is the issue that Marx has brought up of labor because labor is arbitrarily given a quantity even though it’s qualitatively ambiguous.

Want I want to argue against this form of critical thought. I lean towards Nietzsche and argue that the perpetrator is more faithful to affirming life than the stoic manager. This is because an interloper can offer deterritorialized surface because an interloper is someone who unknowingly accepts a contract; A contract he wants to escape from. This can allow productive codes to then reterritorialize onto developed surfaces. It is in developed surfaces where disjunction recordings become necessary to imprint a memory. The need to insult comes from another enjoying excess life at their expense. What participants don’t see are the disjunctions because these aren’t obvious connections that can point them to a productive flow… At least immediately. The commodity-establishment-greed connection that we see in the video are all separate entities that are loosely connected after exiting one domain and entering into another: 1) Commodity as trade, in this case, exchanging money for food, 2) the establishment as exchanging labor for service, and 3) greed which the perpetrator claims the manager is profiting from by placing a pregnant woman in a not-so-ideal condition. These entities are forced to communicate through non-communicative vessels. One in the realm of commerce, the other in the realm of economics, and another in the realm of psychology.

The surplus created is irrational and chaotic which are necessary components for life to exist, survive and strive. Think about it, if the narrative of a highly developed nation with low self-tolerance claims that if someone insults you, it is because you intentionally allow that person to inscribe himself on your body, which is why they say that nobody can insult you unless you let them. Life began at as a small event which exploded into the biodiversity of the planet. Little trite things which is what makes life affirmative. They only true insult in a low self-tolerant society is where one insults himself, and this is where interloping comes in. In this backward society where nobody can “strike first” the connections are made too obvious with the external world. In this sense, the world is connected a little too well. There is no such thing as miscommunication or misinterpreted communication. Everyone is using space by proxy to live vicariously in someone else’s mind and vice versa. This is where the phrase “live rent-free in my head” comes from. Interpolation happens on both sides agreeing to reciprocally recognize the other into contract. What comes later will depend on how well the connections perform because it will ultimately lead to a thoughtful retaliation. But first, one must allow the other person to stand in a space where space reveals itself to not favor him. An insult is an offer of space. An insult is an offer of pure space – deterritorialized space. It is pure and innocencent which is more akin to a virgin being sacrificed to the Gods.

Hypocrisy: the greatest virtue one can have

This can explain why that despite other citizens that share low self-tolerance, doesn’t seem to act with the empathy that was once shown to them. This lack of awareness doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence. It’s a-priori. Remember that a public freak-out centers around a trivial or small matter that can easily be tolerated if one wanted to. It gives each person the right amount of suspicion as to whether or not the other brings superficial motivations to the table. The manager works under “the customer is always right” mode of though. This is a strategic placement of low degrees of self-tolerance. Let’s be cynical for a moment and explain that the gentle and proper behavior of the young manager is a coping mechanism. “The manager is too afraid to stand up for himself because of potential precaution of the establishment works under.”

Let’s turn to the picture, from the Wikipedia article on rage. It seems to indicate the profound relationship we share with the external environment. It suggests that we can be driven by rage but also fear at the same time. We encounter an external stimulus. The adrenal gland needs to excrete adrenalin to the blood stream to cause a flight-or-fight response. The hypothalamus is first to receive the signal to secrete hormones throughout the body in a chain reaction to arrive at the intended hormone. But that signal points to another response, which points to another response that can create unintended consequences like behaving in an aggressively as if one’s life is being attacked. This reaction continues to externalize outwardly called a signifying chain. One thing the signifying chains cannot point to is the thing-in-itself or the simulacrum that is out of reach. Our external chains are only limited to the signifying chains that they point to in our immediate enjoinment. We must be cautious with this interpretation because we inherent a progressive tradition that strives to minimize all form of suffering in the world. And if we assume that small sufferings are insignificant and negligible enough to be tolerated, then we will be stuck in an endless loop of signifying chains pointing to signifying chains replacing other signifying chains which create a nightmare for people who need to create meaning in their lives. Instead of meaning, they exist under a perpetual nightmare of people clawing away at each other believing one must measure up against another soul in order to have worth of life.

Psychologists would point to certain chemicals in our brain or neurotransmitters that assist the brain into making decisions of whether or not one should engage in a confrontation. Among other things like pupil dilation, hyperventilation, inhibition of rational thought, increased heart rate, dried mouth, etc. Studies psychologists have made strives to show empirical studies that support theories and models that reflect the external world existing in-and-of-itself interpretation of our perceptions and sensations. [Kant thing-in-it-self.]

There doesn’t seem to be a big debate on ethical interpretation of publicly demonstrating rage. In our example, the employee exhibits a low degree of self-tolerance but so does the attacker. By having the flow set up in the way of the video, the life-force initially flows from the perpetrator to the victim like a waterfall having water flow from high potential energy to low potential energy. This is what initially defines the perpetrator as an attacker and the manager as the receiver of the attack. But wouldn’t low self-tolerance point to the attacker being the actual victim? What if he were to enact some form or retribution or justice? This would place him as the receiver. The flow of water flows backwards in this instance. Here we have two conflicting flows, each pointing in opposite. Remember there is an excess surplus being created that requires extra force (on behalf of the subjects, and depending where they push or pull) to glide life-force around to position themselves in favor of the positive life-flowing waterfall. They lock horns not in a animalistic kind of battle, but one where they allow space to reveal the winner to fall in favor with and one where space reveals itself not in favor with.

On the part of the manager, the rational, calm, collected, and reasonable attitude signals to the perpetrator that the matter is insignificant enough to dissolve away. Connections are working a little too well (as Chick-fil-A lines usually are), it’s a little too obvious who wins here and who losses, and it’s a little too condescending. This is a threat to life-force and the perpetrator reacts to keep the life-force from exhausting on its way to its destination. The winner gets the pure joy of watching the loser in mental pain by obtaining a confirmation of revenge at that very moment. This is why revenge has a timeless quality to it. This timeless component of revenge is essential in defining what it is. It’s orgasmic, limited experience, and instantaneous. When one obtains revenge, they seek it out as a limited experience where they are allowed to siphon life-force to the max. Why is revenge desirable in the first place? There are a couple of ways people have tried to interpret this. If we understand revenge as desirable then wanting revenge is precisely because one is unable to attain it. Not being able to obtain revenge is what defines itself but also oppose itself. This could explain why the instigator, or the perpetrator must work against desiring revenge so as to not want it. Revenge has everything to do with anti-positionality and time. Revenge has nothing to do with ressentiment, or emotion. It has to do with space and time. The timeless component can help a subject determine the position of the winner and thus, siphons life-force into himself. Things change, people move around, and there is no way to know what one is thinking at any point in time.

Part 3: Dialectical responses

In a typical public Freak-out scenario, the confrontation tends towards a climactic finale where the arguers leave each other’s presence. This discursive flow maintains its momentum via the two individuals attempting to evade a loss and obtain a definite win. All events, situations, and setting have within them their own opposition. Meaning that the very conditions that has brought the event to come to pass contains its own undoing. Once an altercation has commenced, it’s difficult to go back as we see here in this video. The man cannot leave it when he isn’t the last one to say something.

There are two main ways to interpret this depending on one’s degree of self-tolerance. A person with a high degree of self-tolerance wouldn’t expect for events to naturally conclude even without his or her input. They still choose to participate regardless of whether or not the issue is considered small enough to ignore. It’s painful to prematurely eject oneself from an on-going fight. This might be the strategy of the second employee who engaged more aggressively with the attacker. The fact that small issues get blown to immense proportions is perfectly okay. It is very human to want revenge and it is the ability to cope that becomes an opportunity to escape an interlopation. Pre-maturely ejecting would disrupt the momentum of the flow of time resulting in a learned behavior of avoidance. Then people attempt to justify an intellectual explanation which is what we should avoid.

Don’t think that the “right” way of dealing with strangers is to get into a shouting match every time something bothers you. Simply being more honest with what one feels gets you closer to more freedom. The main problem with seeking revenge is that we must constantly look for events beyond the casual experience to find enemies to defeat and watch them in pain. Here’s where we transition into political philosophy. Due to the smallness of most things, we encounter (we can argue that there are only small and insignificant things), the main project of humanity was to serve everyone to the best of our ability. We are now obligated to serve up our enemies and build them up to our level. It’s either that or bring ourselves down to their level. Or bring them up. For the low self-tolerant person, the only reason for serving one’s enemies is to build them up to a worthy level. This is to ensure that one can wholesale life-force by making an offer. We can feel this reluctance when engaging with a salesman. The aversion to the salesmen profession has nothing to do with making an offer they can’t refuse. In fact, an offer they can’t refuse is unable to leverage the reactive instinct and without this no surplus of emotion can ever take place. Every insult are pure offers of life and there’s no reason to insult an imbecil if it just flies over their head. A well-educated society who are well aware of their standing are the most clinically unwell people. They are exclusively connected with complete objects constantly defining the relationship with the external world and desiring-machines. In a commercial setting, the most common phrase is “always be closing.” In a capitalistic setting, a Modus Operandi is set up where flows-of-growth are constantly deterritorializing productive codes and reterritorize them in developed surfaces. The customer service is a desexualized fetishized commodity where the markup is paid for with a desexualized currency. All this makes customer service industry come to an existential crisis. If what defines a developed nation as a service-based economy comes from exporting mechanical labor overseas, then the only reason of purchasing the final product off the assembly line is the pure act of the purchase.

It’s very obvious why the perpetrator waited until his food to arrive to him before initiating the encounter. As technology becomes more efficient, and as our expectation becomes more refined, it’s becoming harder and harder to produce surplus life to wholesale it around. The machine is becoming overworked and neurosis is becoming more apparent as technology is revealing that space itself is the true master accountant. As the video concludes, it shows how the pregnant lady is quite content to being outside and doesn’t seem to be bothered by it.

What happens with the passage of time? In other words, what happens to the two of them (or 4 people in the case of the video) when they part ways and emotions cool down. The low self-tolerant person behaves for the sake of growth. They expect to “grow a thinker skin” by progressively desensitizing their ability to care. This is devastating to the creation of more life. If the victim becomes a masochist than that means the attacker will become the sadist by definition. This throws a wrench into the entire operation. We can see how this attitude drives the entire interaction. The low-self tolerant manager gets involved only if they can get the complainer to move so they can get to the next customer. We’re back to the chicken and egg problem.

Low self-tolerance is the left-over legacy of slave morality. By choosing to disengage with the external world, we’ve built a productive economy to account for and maintain a phantasmic world for each and every individual creates a revenge fantasy. The chicken and egg problem can be summed up because it’s impossible to know what goes in inside the head of the stranger. It’s all a guess. The winner isn’t a winner by declaring himself a winner but rather, the one who can label the losing party as “loser.” This assurance can only rely on the connective synthesis of the general economy that quantifies values and yields productive codes along its surface. It is when connections aren’t easily made that assurance must rely on an inscription so that it remains permanently marked. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a blatant chicken and egg problem as to who started what and who won or lost. The measure of self-tolerance solve this issue beautifully because it is the one who exabits low self-tolerance that is the loser. Yes, he won the “Nobel” fight. He has become the “bigger man.” But it at the expense of his or her culture that will eventually get replaced with a code of conduct or a culture of disinterment. And this is the objective loser.

The masterpiece created by the slave revolt in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals was the transvaluation of values. The lowly and life-denying slaves found a way to disengage from life by avoiding meaningless suffering. As opposed to the aristocratic class who knew that suffering has no inhalant meaning but it’s merely a product of life itself.

It is the reasonable young manager that poisons and ruins it for the rest of us. By not choosing to engage and entertain a meangless doesn’t excuse him to pass the complainer off as a vigilante who’s looking to find fault in the smallest thing. By not allowing himself to get bothered, he simply becomes part of the woke capitalist superstructure that worships progressivism for “personal growth” or societal growth. Prematurely ending a confrontation or refusing to give importance to small issues feels defeating for a reason. But he wants it to seem valiant and noble to not feel vengeance. He wants to believe that the there are better things to get mad about. We are not so different than the young manager as we too are inheritors of this a priori inheritance of slave morality.

We can see that the second employee does not take the “higher ground.” He doesn’t care about “biting the bullet” or seeming triggered. He chooses to defend himself because he is highly self-tolerant. The low self-tolerant young manager doesn’t move past the encounter because he doesn’t entertain the accusation. He moves on precisely because it bothers him and refuses to take up the work by being busy and making it about growth. Make no mistake, he does feel a want to get revenge and denying it will create revenge fantasies. This is the poison of low-tolerance culture, that every failure has to be a “lesson learned.” If they were to switch sides, the manager would be very careful “correct this mistake” and force an empathetic response. To deny life’s worst elements is to reject it whole. It is the legacy that the slaves have brought us to carry this idea that suffering must have a purpose or a meaning. It doesn’t because we give it meaning intrinsically.

There are people who are ahead of their time. It was that the culture has rapidly shifted from under their feet. People who have mastered the art of having difficult conversations know how to navigate the nuances of living a high self-tolerant lifestyle. Kindness has nothing to do with power but destruction. Kindness is a form of creative destruction. But the culture doesn’t want that. The culture has changed so fast that it leaves heroes in a bad light. Actually, it leaves them in an optical illusion. We are witnessing the greatest shift of culture through a new kind of environment. The digital environment has no foundation on understanding tolerance or insulting. Perhaps in time, we will better appreciate those who have opposing opinions.


 [GP1]There’ purpose behind it. Remember that the person who intends to initate a confrontation is typically seen as having motivation on top of the actual issue at hand. This will gear the audience to label the provocateur as the loser because it indicates that he is an instigator. It raises suspicions as to whether he is hiding something or is afraid to let the real issue be let out for discussion. Weather it is an external issue or an internal issue, it’s can never be known unless the vigilante make it known. Which is precisely what the vigilante is. Hiding in plain sight.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.