Leads to (with increasing degrees of Worry, and decreasing degrees of Doubt):
Astro: I may not exist.
Exosphere: It is conceivable that all of my beliefs are falsely directed.
Thermosphere: What if David Icke was right?
Mesosphere: What if David Irving was right?
Stratosphere: What if Mohammed was right?
Troposphere: What if Nietzsche was right?
Aerosphere: Neofascism. Nukes. Climate chaos. Late-capitalist consensus. Polarization of wealth, elites, faith.
Thin air: I am fat and decaying.
1 bar: Eventually, I will give in to my ideological circumstances. (Want what the world wants me to want.)
Crust: Eventually, I am going to die.
Mantle: Eventually, I am going to be found out.
Core: Eventually, I will vote Conservative.
How lovely is the phrase "You know what I'm like" in practice?
What it means is, I guess, the triple:
1) everyone else, roughly
2) my past selves, less roughly
3) a character, a rogue, a card, someone who is something more than just bundles of sense for you.
"The composition of vast books is a laborious and impoverishing extravagance. To go on for five hundred pages developing an idea whose perfect oral exposition is possible in a few minutes! A better course of procedure is to pretend that these books already exist, and then to offer a resume, a commentary . . . More reasonable, more inept, more indolent, I have preferred to write notes upon imaginary books."
James spends much time drawing out the meaning and microcosmic power from pop music. I like it very much too, but I won't dig in too far. If I did, it might start looking like fallacy-checking pop songs...
"If I was a rich girl,
Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na,
Then I'd have all the money in the world,
If I was a wealthy girl."
(affirming the consequent.)
-this is fucking great, a coupla Polish concréte jazzists on a tight freakout.
- In the unlikely case that you're able to resist this, keep your unfortunate skill to yourself, eh?
-and this is *almost* good despite its concept: lumpen Brit hiphop crew 30KB in praise of meateating. They aim for homely Beta Band, but barely make it to Dan Le Sac.
Thought on "sensitivity"
And fundamentally I don't think it's a matter of one being actually researched, of one of them having a writing style and only one of them linking the issue to anything except self-righteousness.
Instead, it's the difference in the writers' sensitivities that makes only one of them lightly sickening. What is sensitivity? I dunno; probably "the ability to be affected", but not just emotionally; to comment, after all, requires hard insight, which after all requires sharp perspective.
We often speak about sensitivity as if it were a small act, or some kind of supererogation on us, but it's not. It is (ok, should be) instead the origin of all critical commentary. In fact, fuck it: it is what vitalizes all thought* that is worth anything.