Fancification

I was just thinking how the opposite of minimalism isn’t necessarily only one thing. Also, how most of those things seem to easily converge into extremes and become as dysfunctional.

Those opposites, to name a few, are fancification, hoarding, and chasing performance.

Chasing performance is easy to explain – it’s belief that you need top performance gear in order to get good results at something. It’s sometimes true, and mostly it’s not. For instance, you might need a Macbook Air, but you might not need the model with the most storage space and most RAM if you’re using it in order to write text. You need it for the small size, great performance, great screen, keyboard and touchpad, but you don’t need the extra performance one would need to run Lightroom and process 61MP files. If you’re into landscape photography, you need a camera and lens with great resolution, contrast and resistance to flare. However, you don’t need a lens with great maximum aperture since you’ll mostly be at f/8-f/16. You also don’t need a camera with the greatest frame rate and autofocus in the world. You just need it to be good enough to catch the occasional specimen of wildlife that happens to wander into the frame. Everything past “good enough” is in essence a waste of resources. You might need 5 FPS, but not 25. What you need is excellent weather sealing. Chasing performance after a certain point is useless and wasteful, and yet people do it because they think more is better. Sure, you want your car to be fast and to accelerate well. It’s important for safe overtaking and safe acceleration to highway speeds. However, after a certain point it becomes excessive, and if you push it far enough it becomes so wasteful and unnecessary it borders on insanity. Also, the more you don’t need it, the more money it tends to cost, and yet people develop some kind of tunnel vision where they rationalise it with spiritual projections of all sorts – oh, a fast car makes me remember the feeling of the astral plane, of freedom and power. Excellent. Work on being on the astral plane then because that’s the actual thing you want. Fuck cars, they are just an illusion that makes you think you can get that in the physical world which you can’t, and it’s fatal to try.

Hoarding is also very easy to understand – you accumulate stuff with little to no consideration to what happens next, chasing that dopamine kick of getting a new thing. Soon you have so many things your place looks like a Chinese $1 store. You also can’t make yourself get rid of things, despite the fact they have zero utility, negative decorative value, and they make it difficult for you to clean and maintain the place. Hoarding is the obvious reason why people thought of minimalism as a solution, often going so far as to make the cure as bad as the disease.

Fancification, on the other hand, is more difficult to explain. Let’s define it as attempt to make each object you own the most exclusive, fancy and expensive you possibly can, often at the expense of functionality and performance. The fixtures in your bathroom don’t just need to be functional, they need to be the fanciest fixtures you can find. You don’t really watch TV, but your TV needs to be the most expensive, biggest, fanciest model. Your fridge needs to be the fancy model that connects to the Internet and shows the interior of the fridge on the screen outside so that you don’t have to open it. Your carpet needs to be Persian, hand made. Your coffee set needs to be handmade vintage porcelain. Where a hoarder will just fill their place with all kinds of trash, you will get very specific, extremely expensive and fancy decorative pieces strategically positioned to start conversations. Nothing you own can be “just anything”, and mere function is something you scoff at. You want it to “reflect your personality”, and you want to show that your personality is fancy and unique, that you’re not satisfied with the mundane.

In my experience, I came to associate those things with certain personality profiles and states. Minimalism, for instance, usually means self-hatred and profound unhappiness. Hoarding indicates mental illness, of a very serious, personality breakdown kind. Fancification, on the other hand, indicates projection; trying to force this reality into conformity with your desires and ideas. It can indicate narcissism, or it can indicate refusal to accept that this world cannot be forced into compliance with your ideas about perfection.

So, where in all of this do I see myself? That’s always an interesting question. I don’t hoard stuff; if trash accumulates, I periodically clean it all up, but I don’t clean everything constantly, because I have better things to do. Rather, I tend to leave everything in good condition so that I don’t have the mess accumulate. I will try to get things that are functional first, and everything else second. I prefer clean, elegant design without extraneous fluff. I prefer steel to gold; gold is for fancy people, steel is for people who get shit done, and I see myself as the latter rather than the former. Minimalism takes too much effort for me to entertain it, but I would subscribe to the Bauhaus ideal of form following function. Also, I prefer not to increase dependency, so I like things that are easy to maintain.

I don’t project higher realities or my true, past self, into either things of this world, or my physical body, because, frankly, I don’t think I deserve it. Vedanta would put identity in terms of realization of the True Self, by which they mean Atman/Brahman, while everything else is either false identification or outright delusion.

I disagree. I see identity as a combination of self, memories, power and circumstances. Self without memories is what exactly? A pathetic, damaged state of being. In case you do remember yourself as being a king in a past life, what is it to you now, if you’re currently an ordinary person without any power? Of what use is a memory of a past self as an important, wealthy, powerful person if you’re a wage slave now? Can you truly claim your former identity? I don’t think so, unless you’re after misery and humiliation. And circumstances, they are perhaps the most important of all. If a huge part of your identity is being surrounded by your family and friends in the higher plane of existence, can you really claim your true self if you’ve been forcefully separated from them, can’t even remember most of it properly, and even the memory you have depends on your spiritual state? Shankaracharya would say that merely saying the words “I am a king” doesn’t make one so, if it goes without commanding an army and ruling a country. To claim identity without appropriate circumstances makes you delusional and an object of ridicule.

So, what does it matter if I remember some of my past circumstances and power, if I have no access to those things now? If I am in a humble state, I would rather act humbly, than make a fool out of myself by claiming something that is out of my reach at the moment. Also, the nature of my memories, those that I managed to reclaim, puts a damper on any attempt to project into my physical circumstances and try to fancify them, because it feels so ridiculous. You can’t substitute spiritual jewels with physical ones, nor can you emulate the Throne of God with physical gold, despite the similarity in colour. It would feel so incredibly ridiculous and pathetic. Things are just things. They can’t reflect my higher reality because if you saw my higher reality, you’d know how ridiculous that even sounds. Am I to try to reproduce Shivaratri here with some pathetic attempt to adorn myself with black jewellery? I am in a pathetic state, being reduced to human existence, but I have some dignity left, so the answer is a definite “no”. A fast car could never reproduce the feeling of true power. No status symbol here can reflect my status “up there”. So, I adhere to simplicity, functionality and dignity of just sucking it up instead of acting childishly in some foolish rebellion.

No fancy things for me here. Just getting shit done. When I reclaim power, memories and circumstances, we’ll talk about true names and identities.

12 thoughts on “Fancification

  1. oh, a fast car makes me remember the feeling of the astral plane, of freedom and power. Excellent. Work on being on the astral plane then because that’s the actual thing you want. Fuck cars, they are just an illusion that makes you think you can get that in the physical world which you can’t, and it’s fatal to try.

    Ok, that's obviously me 🙂

    One of my many problems is memory. I can't remember shit. But in the same time, I have very strange memories of feelings I am unable to feel. It's like being color blind, but vaguely remembering that everything should look different, but you can't remember how.
    So I am not trying to have that here or bring something here, I do not even want to be here.
    I am trying to remember or better say, trying not to forget completely.
    I am fighting severe memory loss.
    Hence the music and fast cars.

      • I am actually aware. It's more like a postcard. You don't try to manifest a beach with clear azure water that's on the postcard … you try to remember a feeling, try to stay sane.
        That clicked some time ago when a friend (who actually owns same car … ) tried explaining me how he wants to enjoy "fruits of his labour" here … not wait some "foggy" other world.
        He painfully tried manifesting whatever he was remembering and I just want to go back and make sure I don't completely forget there is "back".

        Other than that, I like going fast. Going slow makes me seriously nervous 😀

        • I was taught a lesson recently.
          It was when I bought the inexpensive Seiko watch because I couldn't wear the Tag Heuer because I didn't have the extension links with me. Also, I was too tired and fucked up for anything elaborate so I just bored a hole through it, cut a presence into the "God realm" without creating an entity locally. Lord Vishnu used the conduit and paid me a visit.
          I thought I had to buy a more sophisticated mechanical watch because the dignity of such function deserved it. Vishnu chimed in: "I think the Seiko did just fine :)"
          I was like, "oh".

          • I think I understand what you are pointing out.
            Buying a Seiko will not create a magical line with Lord Vishnu, having ability to punch a hole to "God realm" will.
            Also, just because things can remind us of something from other realities it does not mean things posses any of those qualities and that can very easily lead to fancification and projection – which I did experience myself.

            A car can trigger something inside me which can start a cascade that will lead to deeper experiences, but car is still just a car and not a glorified portal to angels, but people tend to do exactly that, just like they would start buying Seiko watches like crazy maniacs.

            However, I still do see my car as something valuable – not only in the context of money, but in the context of current cars and direction of car industry which is turning into absolute shit – which makes my car rather rare thing that is not made any more and that makes me want to take good care of it and not trash it and neglect it.

            • I think the lesson is that I could've got something like Omega Aqua Terra or Longines Zulu Time, or I could've taken a pinecone from a tree, it's just matter. The magical part was what I did with it. That's why Krishna basically said it's fine, it did a good job of being something I can put on my wrist and pretend it's there for functionality.

  2. How might one view the continuous construction of numerous and imposing temple edifices throughout human history—from those buried beneath forests thousands of years old to newly erected structures? Is this not out of proportion to the actual state of affairs concerning the relationship of the human beings present on Earth—their evolutionary position in relation to the Gods for whom they build these temples? The temples are here—but what about actual contact with the Gods?

    Apparently, one of Prabhupada’s disciples, now a teacher himself, recently stayed in Zagreb, while another Buddhist priest resides permanently in Hungary, in a spacious Buddhist center. What kind of centuries-old, yet generation-by-generation, conundrum is this?

    • Does each individual God represent a particular ethical system? What is the actual relationship of human beings to such an ethical system? They are evidently on good terms with the Satanic one—which is widespread here on Earth.

      • This strikes me as an obvious problem: an individual does not know the characteristics of a particular God, so how can they comprehend the ethics that proceeds from such a being? And in such a case, what can they use as a reference point—as a coordinate toward which to strive?

        How long does a human life last, again? And what do people do here during their lifetime? They try to secure comfort for themselves according to the locally normalized Satanic standard—but what kind of ethics do they think they can derive from that and present as a viable path forward?

    • I don't understand the question, because it is not obvious to me why a person with actual connection to God would go and build temples, or why people building temples would even feel the need for an actual connection to God.

      • Let us begin from a certain point without defining it in any particular way. This place here on “Earth” is a filthy mess: a horde of wandering zombies either forces everything into conformity or attacks it.

        Where, then, can an individual find any reliable guidance by which they might manage to accomplish anything at all during their lifetime without the Devil trapping them back on Earth?

        I can understand the concept of a temple as a kind of point of remembrance that ought to provide a corrective—or a reminder of God’s characteristics—in contrast to the prevailing circumstances and relationships within human society. After all, beings possess certain qualities and characteristics.

        But there appears to be a problem: people either grasp everything only superficially or project their own qualities onto the Divinities.

        How, for example, would a Divine Being regard an individual whose Truthfulness (Istinoljubivost) is an integral part of who they are? There are many people who do not possess this characteristic, but there are also a rare few who manifest it when it matters.

        Are human beings the bearers of certain characteristics? Obviously, they are.

Leave a Reply