Angry schoolboy– a meme that signifies unreasonable aggression, typical of schoolchildren (most often we are talking about inappropriate behavior on the Internet).
Origin
Often on the Internet you can see the “Angry Schoolboy” meme, which depicts an angry (aggressive) boy of unknown origin. To create this meme, one of the characters from the movie “Chumscrubber” – Thomas – was used. This meme is one of the most common accordions on the RuNet, but it still does not lose its popularity.
The meme has earned such popularity thanks to the aggressive expression of the young man, which he makes even despite the fact that his threats are in vain and are simply intended to show off.
The Angry Schoolboy meme very characteristically describes youth school age, which in any situation begins to show its aggression, anger and “show-off”. In this regard, older people and people who just want to show a real schoolboy the level of his threats can send the “angry schoolboy” meme with a certain caption. This meme basically carries the meaning of unreasonable aggression and an attempt to assert oneself in words, and the absence of any action.
Meaning
Thanks to the Angry Schoolboy, you can besiege a person in his arrogant words or, on the contrary, hint to him that his “show-offs,” words and actions resemble a weak schoolboy who has achieved nothing. Also, this meme can characterize a person who is very jealous of the success of others, and only verbally tries to find an excuse for himself or express a threat.
» © Ken Wilber, 2003
Per. from English © Evgeny Pustoshkin, 2013
Navigation through "Fragment A"
Notes 1–8
Alexander and Colomy, “Neostructuralism today,” in G. Ritzer (ed.), Frontiers of Social Theory.
Strictly speaking, a collective or public holon (cultural or social) does not have a single organizing activity, will or consciousness, and therefore, public holons do not directly pregensively recognize their ancestors, or previous public holons, as well as individual holons do this. It is subjectivity that pregensively cognizes previous subjectivity, but all subjects arise in the context or against the background of subjectivity (and interobjectivity), which partly shapes and influences the very nature of subjectivity. More precisely, each holon has a subjective dimension, which directly precognitively knows its past, but it also has an intersubjective dimension, with which subjectivity is always already tetra-mesh, and therefore, to some extent, it limits the form of sensations (feelings) that a given subjectivity can experience in any actual event. Such a limitation imposed by cosmic habit is a form of cultural memory. Likewise, the objective dimensions of any holon are coupled with interobjective realities that limit the form of objective behavior - this limitation manifests itself in the form of the memory of social systems.
For centuries, philosophers have debated the similarities and differences between the individual and the social. Some rejected any differences altogether; others rejected any similarities. And both sides are right: there are certainly important similarities, as well as important differences, between individual and social holons - see “On Criticism, the Integral Institute, My Recent Work, and Other Minor Matters: A Shambhala Interview with Ken Wilber.”
(What is the easiest way to distinguish an individual holon from a social, or public, holon? In the first case, there is a visible physical boundary: an ant is an individual holon, and a colony of ants is a social holon; a human body is an individual holon, while a family, a club and the nation is human social holons. Confusing one with the other is a fatal mistake, which (among other things) is precisely the definition of fascism, whether political fascism, eco-fascism or value fascism, because in this case the collective is treated as to an individual with a singular will, value and intentionality, which makes all real individuals slaves of this system and its dominant monad.This is observed in all sorts of cases from simple theories such as the autopoiesis of Maturana and Varela to real politics (such as the notorious dictum of Louis XIV L'Etat c'est moi- “The State is me,” from which it followed that the entire population of the State should act “as I, its dominant monad, command”). Herbert Spencer was the first to emphasize the significance of this distinction, noting that the social and the individual can be contrasted in terms of, respectively, asymmetry versus symmetry, discreteness versus concreteness, sensibility in all contained units versus a single sensory center. Whitehead agreed with this; he called such a feeling center (which is possessed by the individual, but not the social holon) the “regnant nexus” or “dominant monad.” We are talking about the center of subjectivity, which carries out any precognition, which is why social holons do not precognitively cognize their past in the same way as individual holons do. These issues are explored in detail in Fragment B, particularly with regard to Maturana and Varela's conflation of the social and the individual. This confusion was corrected in Niklas Luhmann's influential reformulation of the theory of social autopoiesis. This is also discussed in "Fragment B"; see also note 3 below.)
The dialectics of progress suggests that any news comes in at least two forms. And in the case of our community, this dialectic relates to the fact that we somehow developed a completely natural evil green meme , and - despite all the difficulties that arise when communicating with this meme - this indicates that we (in some sense) have almost reached the point that the Western integral community passed about 6 years ago - during that period in its novel “Boomerit” ( Boomeritis) Wilber also formulated a critique of the disease, which has a diagnostic name Postmodern Pluralite/Boomerite.
This is nice for the simple reason that, using the experience of our senior comrades, we can easily discern the pain points of this notorious evil green meme - in order to eradicate it forever with our emotional fascism and the blows of forged boots. All jokes aside, we can easily bypass the main pitfalls of postmodern land by listening to the voice of the morphic resonance of days gone by. Putting on a serious face: the green level (albeit a pathological green level) is already a solid application for the beginning of the formation of an emerald integral vision. Having passed this exam and done another level-up, we will be able to draw second-order stars on our integral wing (as is known thanks to research in developmental psychology, the ability for integral vision and perception of integral values, roughly speaking, develops precisely after the green height).
Having finished this lyrical digression, let’s turn directly to the topic of blogging. Recently, in discussions on one of the posts, the question of transpersonal revisionism was raised Jorge Ferrera and his book “A New Look at Transpersonal Theory” published in Russian (M.: AST, 2004 / N.Y.: 2002). Jorge Ferrer is a young transpersonal theorist, and in his book he attempted to "deconstruct" and "reconstruct" transpersonal psychology in general and Ken Wilber in particular. Continuing the publication of materials on the integral view of psychology community ru_integral_psy posts translation of Daryl Poulson's critical review of the book under discussion, which examines the green nature of Ferrer's worldview (as presented in the book) and the inconsistency of his criticism of Wilbur. The review touches on issues such as Ferrer's accusation of structuralism or "perennial philosophy" and much more. The article helps to better understand Wilber's view and the limitations of green height.