Step aside, Marcus Aurelius; Gabi Abrão from
is my new guide on how to be online. From her piece, "how to share your work online":you're not special. this is a very, very good thing. people who feel special suffer extensively to maintain the special-feeling. you are just another echo in this series of caves we're all stepping in and out of. this is a very, very good thing.
Maintaining "the special-feeling" seems to be the crux seduction for many writers online. This special-feeling is related to that dreaded word: narcissism. People say we are in a "narcissism epidemic," but we are probably in an epidemic of overusing the word narcissism.
People weaponized the word, dismissing others who creatively express themselves online. People fear expressing themselves creatively online because they fear being seen as narcissists. And online intellectuals engage in the "narcissistic fallacy," dismissing other online intellectuals' arguments because they are presumably narcissistic.
The word narcissism is thrown around way too much. When writing about an overused word, it is good to own your definition, aka have a "based definition."1 Here is mine: a zero-sum sense of specialness in oneself. This type of specialness differs from a domain-specific sense of specialness that is zero-sum. For example, it makes sense for Michael Jordan to accurately view himself as a more special basketball player than others. That is not narcissism; that is reality.
The key phrase to the definition: "a sense of specialness," related to Gabi's "special-feeling" expression. What makes something special? Definitionally speaking, I like the first lexical definition I came across when searching: "different from what is usual." Felt-sensely2 speaking, the special-feeling has a warm sensation that makes me want to smile like a little boy with my parents adoring eyes on me after doing something in front of them for the first time.
The novelty aspect is the crux of the feeling of being special. There is nothing wrong with feeling special when doing something new. Things become foolish when you start chasing the feeling and stop focusing on the intrinsic value of the thing that brought the feeling. For example, as an epiphenomena, writing sometimes brings me the special-feeling. However, I am not writing to feel special; I am writing for a slew of reasons: to become less foolish, to improve as a writer, to support my livelihood partly, and because I have fallen in love with the experience of putting an espresso in my mouth and being surprised with what words emerge from tapping my fingers on this keyboard.
It becomes foolish when one stops doing something for their intrinsic values and when the special-feeling becomes their intrinsic value, not just an occasional epiphenomena they stumble upon. When this happens, one risks becoming a narcissist because the sense of specialness can bleed from the local domain that invokes the feeling toward the ubiquitous domain of the self.
This overuse of the word narcissism relates to a fear of being seen as a narcissist and becoming one, which will always lead to great foolishness. I think it's vital to become sophisticated with this phenomenon to create a "leveling mechanism"3 for oneself. A leveling mechanism is an anthropological term where a community ensures social equality, humbling members of a group that evaluate themselves above others. If you do not have your own leveling mechanism, humbling yourself, others will humble you, often through humiliation.
It is good to know the sources of where the special-feeling gets invoked to help design a leveling mechanism. I see at least two sources:
Doing something novel.
A novel response when doing something.
A personal example: when writing here, I sometimes get the special-feeling because I write in a way that puts me at the edge of my thinking. Hence, when my writing enters novel territory for me, it engenders a special-feeling. The response I get from these entries is rarely novel; therefore, no associated special-feeling occurs. However, I occasionally experience the feeling when the response is novel to me.
I turned on the comments and like button feature on this Substack this May. After writing 450 entries here, I now see who chooses to display their like for my writing. The special-feeling is more salient now and comes when I receive a novel response, which usually corresponds to the size of likes. Thus far, I average 20-30 likes per post, a number I am content with, which does not invoke the special-feeling due to its lack of novelty.
The last entry that invoked the feeling was my “Transperspectival Masturbation” post, which received over 60 likes, the most received since the like feature was turned on. The curious thing: writing that entry did not invoke the special-feeling, because I felt like I was repeating myself, and at least for me, the territory was not novel. I suppose I’ll have to receive 100 likes to invoke a special-feeling with a response now.4
To engage in some 2x2fu5, the following option space unfolds related to the special-feeling:
Novel doing, novel response = Full Special-Feeling
Novel doing, non-novel response = Frustrated Special-Feeling
Non-novel doing, novel response = Surprised Special-Feeling
Non-novel response, non-novel reponse = No Special-Feeling
The one I experience the most, and I suspect many online writers do as well, falls in the “novel doing, non-novel response” category. This mismatch brings mild internal pain because you feel doped up on the special-feeling, then share it with “the world,” experiencing felt-sense whiplash when the response is non-novel.
Luckily, given that I purposely went comments-free for the last 3.5 years on the internet, both on Substack and YouTube, I have trained myself to be anchored in my intrinsic values when writing, not to get too distracted by states that emerge from it.
Another thing that helped is engaging in many “embodiment” practices, bringing greater intimacy with my felt senses. I can more easily spot when I am thrown out of my personal sovereignty, aka “out of tune” with the values that matter most to me, due to an on-rush of state shifts that are often hard to notice.
The project to develop a leveling mechanism to prevent the creep of the special-feeling into bonafide narcissism is twofold:
Do not chase after the special-feeling, either in the doing or in response.
Do not allow the domain-specific special-feeling to bleed into a ubiquitous special-feeling, aka start believing your “self” is special.
There are three “reactions” I see thus far to develop a leveling mechanism:
The playing small reaction
The covert narcissism reaction
The Buddhistic reaction
The playing small reaction is for people terrified of being shamed as narcissists. Hence they hide their talent, stopping them from sharing their gifts with the world. This may prevent narcissism creep but does so at the cost of enriching the world with their creativity.
The covert narcissism6 reaction is hiding one’s special-feeling in socially savvy ways. The danger here is that denying that they do not feel special allows the sense of specialness to creep into their sense of self covertly. As a general rule, people who are overly focused on policing overt narcissists tend to be covert ones.
The Buddhistic reaction aims for the state of “non-duality”7 to become a permanent trait via meditative practices, realizing one’s “sense of self” is an “illusion” in the process. The idea here is if there is no self, there will be no self that has zero specialness associated with it. This reaction strikes me as overkill and often leads to weird “spiritual bypassing” dynamics8, with people having advanced non-ordinary states of consciousness that only bolster their special-feeling.
Instead of these reactions, I recommend responding with these principles:
Bake the following premise into your philosophy as a hard rule: you are not special. Even if you become the “Michael Jordan of X,” that just means you are special in X. That does not mean you are more special as a person than other people.
Find a way to honor the sense of specialness you receive when you do something novel or receive novel responses. Pat yourself on the back, then move on.
Be around people who humble you if you become captured by the urge to chase after the special-feeling.
Having a spouse who is not shy to call you out if you become full of yourself (thanks, Camille) and “friends of virtue,” friends oriented toward the good, who are not afraid to call you out on your shit, are good relationships to have that keep the special-feeling in check.
Overall, many are collectively on their way to getting into the right relationship with the special-feeling, with people like Gabi leading the way. This should encourage more people to write in a way that allows them to feel special momentarily while reminding themselves that they are not.
If you have any strategies or ideas for bespoke leveling mechanisms, pop them in the comment section.
In critical thinking circles, coming to terms with definitions before jumping into an argument is recommended. Regarding the origin of a definition, there are “lexical definitions,” which come from a dictionary, and “stipulative definitions,” which come from someone’s ego, stipulating others use their definition. I propose a third type of definition: “based definitions,” which come from a deeply resonant place, while philosophically coherent, without stipulating others use your definition. You can read about the practice I recommend to base your definitions here.
“It is more than simply a "gut feeling" or an "intuition," and it is more than thoughts or feelings. The "felt sense" is, rather, the sense of the whole of a situation. The felt sense can include thoughts, feelings and intuitions, but a felt sense is somehow more than all that.” - “What is Focusing” from Eugene Gendlin's The International Focusing Institute.
“One commonly given example of a leveling mechanism is the !Kung practice of "shaming the meat", particularly as illustrated by the Canadian anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee in his article "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" (1969). When Lee gave the !Kung an ox as a Christmas gift, the !Kung responded by insulting the gift, calling it a "bag of bones" and joking that they would have to eat the horns because there was no meat on it. Lee later asked a man named Tomazo why his gift was insulted in this way. He responded that it was because the gift was arrogant. Lee asked what he meant by this and was told: ‘Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle.’” - Wikipedia
I noticed writing this line invoked a “thirsty” felt-sense in me. The part of me that wants to taste the special-feeling wants you to like this post. The part of me who wants to play small does not want you to. The part of me who pretends not to want to taste it wants to play cloy. The part of me that is writing this footnote now is Stoically indifferent.
2x2fu is the art that emerged from postrationalist sensei
that helps unfold ad hoc 2x2 models to make sense of a particular slice of reality playfully.In the literature on narcissism, overt narcissism is marked by grandiose behaviors and attention-seeking, openly showcasing self-importance. Covert narcissism involves subtle, sneaky self-centeredness, with individuals appearing modest while still seeking the special-feeling.
Judith Blackstone had a good session on The Stoa, offering an embodied approach to non-duality from a Buddhistic perspective. You can look at Christian non-dual practices if you are similar to me and do not fully vibe with Buddhistics. See the writing of Fr. Thomas Keating and Cynthia Bourgeault, which advocate for the “centering prayer” practice.
Spiritual bypassing is the tendency to use spiritual beliefs and practices to avoid emotional and psychological challenges, often found with white people engaging in Orientalism, leading to what philosopher Alexander Bard calls “pillar saints”: someone who is mindful via concentration practices at the expense of being senseful via embodiment practices, especially ones involving sex and aggression, resulting in interpersonal asymmetries and potential “cult states.”