(untitled)

I've been meaning to do this post on Lainchan for a while now, but the timing never quite seemed to hit the mark. During the construction of the site/ideology I ended up adopting the idea of putting something, anything out, regardless of it being finished or not, so as to keep myself active and moving regarding the development of the site/ideology. I think I'm currently in a situation where outsider comments would have their weight in gold - that is to say: I think my writing and/or programming skills (if you could call them that) are, or have become, so unclear and/or obscure that I could use a nudge in the right direction, for I suspect the point of it all isn't being conveyed to the "general public" (can't say if Neocities is quite that, but still...) in the most optimal manner possible. What I want you, lainons, to do, if you could spare a few minutes of your time, is questioning,criticizing/judging/evaluating my site and its contenst to the best of your knowledge. Point out all the contradictions of the ideology, stupid coding choices as well as the general feelings or "vibes" (be it good or bad) that you get from or spot on the site. To put it briefly, the whole point of it all is to achieve a qualitative change of life, to assert a "point" to the sickly, broken people that wander around the surface of Earth. "Towards what end?", you might ask. Simply put: towards a more fulfilling (i.e. more individuated) life - the kind of life that the Spectacle promises, but cannot and will not deliver to us. I'm no authority on the subject - in fact, you might even say that I'm writing it all more for myself in order to combat the attitude that resides in me, and which prefers to wallow in lazy, apathetic comfort instead of aiming for the stars - but I think it is an important project (despite my somewhat obvious shortcomings in English). My site is located in: https://neocities.org/site/a-com. I'm not sure if this thread fits in on this /hum/, but I made sure that I didn't kill anything too important with my thread. And, if you must know, the killed-off thread's OP was: "Are you involves with the Knights? (serious) >in;b4 the knights are fictional You don't get it"

>>48237 How do you, OP, personally fight back against the Spectacle? How have you used the knife to gain your very own individuality? How do you, OP, spend your time to prove to the Spectacle that it doesn't have control over your life? What does a life-will appear to be, concretely, as in the specific daily activities which one spends it's time doing, if it isn't driven by the Spectacle? [Maybe this is asking too much]

>>48237 Ok, a few remarks. >pic. rel, your site is nigh-unreadable on mobile Next, the antidote to unhealthy comfort is not battle, but to establish healthy comfort by a combination of removing inducers/binding sites of sickly comfort, and by at least noting and positively connecting (like accepting, thanking) healthy elements of comfort that are present. I can assure you that the same state of being with the comfort factor removed is simply worse, like changing nothing about your life but starting to sleep on the floor will remove a portion of comfort but will not actually improve your situation discernable. Secondly, materials consceding to being used as weapons is a sickly state of affairs. As such I don't endorse the extended use of blended surgical/war-like metaphor. Lastly and shortly because I found point two to be exhaustingly disgusting, the lack of direction you describe seems to be a lack of moral orientation; a lack of discernment of values. That's all.

with your cognition of a knife representing masculine sexuality by the same logic , language could represent feminine sexuality .

>>48243 not interested in either sexuality . I just wanted to point out the bias .

deep systemic bias , present throughout your website

>>48240 Very good questions, lainon. Thank you. >How do you, OP, personally fight back against the Spectacle? First of all, we should probably take a couple steps back and refamiliarize ourselves with what the Situationists meant by the term. Basically it is the more developed version of capitalism or market economy – to express the Marxist take on capitalism, in the most simplified manner possible: profit-seeking is responsible for alienation, commodity fetishism and class struggle (as well as contributing to racism, sexism and colonial imperialism, if you really start applying Marxist analysis to history). Debord’s Spectacle takes these concepts a couple steps further, applying them to the then-emerging, mid-century consumer society, where the new technological mediums (most importantly: television) had taken the center-stage in mediating our social relations – we were (and currently still are) being torn further and further away from what is “real” towards “representations”: signs, ads, symbols, brand-values, virtuality, simulations, simulacra and so on, that merely point towards the real, but which always frustrates our efforts to directly experience it. Now, as you might already know – and which I suspect to be the initial reason for your asking the question – our lives are currently quite heavily intertwined, saturated, regulated and infused with representations that it is nearly impossible to live outside our currently social arrangement, outside the Spectacle – unless you go full on Ted Kaczynski mode, and even that might not be enough anymore to break free from it. So, how can you fight back? What is there to do to resist it? What *can* we do anyway? Well, to put it bluntly, I’m starting to think that we can’t do much about it, which is why I’m more or less undergoing a process of making a break from Situationist theory, as it seems like an ideological dead-end at this point (in terms of it descriptive value, the Situationists are extremely valuable as a theoretical framework and I’m probably going to continue using them as a basis, but I just don’t see their revolutionary objective of eliminating capitalism happening at this point, which is, if you’ve been paying attention to contemporary left-leaning intellectuals, seems to be the general attitude anyway among them.). So, I’ve decided to reject this, more societally oriented political aspect of Situationist theory (because, let’s be honest, trying to fight the system head-on is only going to make it stronger (which also seems to be the conclusion that some of the revolutionary thinkers have eventually made, [...] A short intermission: (like I’ve surmised in my older writings in https://a-com.neocities.org/trash.htm: “[…] when every form of opposition and antagonism are reduced to the role of criticism and then recuperated as a part of the spectacle’s internal dynamics of structure, the antagonistic forces die out, once the avant-garde revolutionaries discover that their actions, instead of undermining the spectacle’s power, are, in fact, only supporting its structure and dynamic movement to its next, stronger stage.”) […] and focus instead on to the individual that has to live inside the reign of the Spectacle.) Instead, I’m trying to go in a more psychological-spiritual direction: as a consequence of the age of disintegration that we’re currently living (I’ll get to this term soon below), we, as people, are starting to come apart internally, because we’re stuffed ideologically with all this consumerist nonsense. We need a counterforce for this process: psychological cohesion, which I think Carl Jung can offer us, but, before we can understand what it is that we need to do in order to live a more dignified, fulfilling life, we need to examine our internal psychic contents by making conceptual distinctions between our internal faculties, tendencies and roles etc. (that’s where the knife comes in: a tool to make ourselves understandable to ourselves, and to cut us off from the apathetic, defeatist state of mind that keeps us subjugated to this system), and clarifying for ourselves what our actual needs are (i.e. which faculties are inferior, which superior, and trying to amend these deficiencies in order to become more well-rounded people – yes, this is Jung in a potato-basic form) (and, again, yes, this whole shebang, isn’t really original – at this point the whole ideology’s composition is all just Marx’s upside-down turned hegelianism turned once more upside-down, so that the ideological “superstructure” is now defining the physical substructure, if that makes sense). In my unpublished writings, I’m trying to formulate a concept called “the age of disintegration”. I’ve been beginning to observe – although at the moment a somewhat vague one, but nevertheless, I think – a defining pattern of our times, namely that, on various walks of life, things are slowly being chipped away at, taken apart, simplified to the extreme and their meaning(s) broken and reduced to mere fragments (yeah, I know, it’s not really that original either, as Debord already had said something similar). Just to give a quick example: the people of flat trend that has been discussed on one of Lainchan’s threads (no point in explaining it here, go see the thread here: https://lainchan.org/vis/res/7086.html). As for the question of how I’m, personally, fighting the Spectacle… as I’m still in the stage of fleshing out and developing the “competing” (it’s more of a reaction than a legit position, I think) ideology, I haven’t made much of a progress IRL. In order to get to live a more fulfilling life IRL, I need to theoretically figure out the terrain that I’ll be playing on – all the possible tactics and objectives and, generally, the nature of the conflict. I think I’ve made some progress in this respect, but I still need to test these beliefs and hypotheses in order to be able to make a definitive assesment of them. In short, by creating a theoretical openings (or: “tearing”) inside the Spectacle’s regime in order to enable our expression of truly lived life. >How have you used the knife to gain your very own individuality? Hmm… I’m not sure how to address this question best. In one sense the use of the knife serves as a grounding, descriptive metaphor through which to view our reality. This way it ties in with our understanding of what it is to be an “individual” (that is, alone and divided from each other in a concrete manner), so you could say that I’m using it every time I’m making a conceptual differentiation between other people and myself, but that isn’t what you’re really asking. Like I expressed in the OP, you could say that I’m developing the ideology for myself. I don’t view myself as particularly extroverted, “involved”, “forceful” or “lively” person, in fact, I’m more of an ascetic hermit than anything else, but I recognize that this lifestyle of mine is unsustainable, so I’ve attempted to rectify these exaggerated tendencies of mine through Jungian psychology. The moment I pointed my analyzing mind inwards, towards myself, I grabbed the metaphysical knife and used it. It is a tool of undertanding, of examination. And here’s what I’ve gained from it: https://a-com.neocities.org/the_whole.html . It might not seem like much to you, but to me this like a map to my within. Jung would’ve probably called “the mandala”, but I’m content in just calling it “the whole” (I think Jung tied the mandala image in with the soul, but the soul, as a concept, is just such a slippery one, so I prefer not to use it too often). These are the four aspects of my psyche, I think. I’m not going to explain this any further than this, for it would take a tremendous amount of time, and I’m going to need to end this post at some point. Lastly, the way I see that other people could use the knife in order to gain their – let us say – “truer” individuality, is by undergoing a series of separations (and unifications), but, in order for this process (you could also call it “the hero’s journey”) to begin, you have to remove and/or detach yourself from your passifying, comfortable and idle circumstances (again, none of this is original, but that isn’t really even the point; it is more of an attitude that I’m trying to instill in people) and gain the courage to explore yourself internally. Let’s leave it at that for now... >How do you, OP, spend your time to prove to the Spectacle that it doesn't have control over your life? Haven’t really thought of it that way. Maybe something of what I’ve wrote above gives you some inkling as to how I’m trying to do that? > What does a life-will appear to be, concretely, as in the specific daily activities which one spends it's time doing, if it isn't driven by the Spectacle? I have no idea how to answer that. Could you open up your question a bit more? >[Maybe this is asking too much] Not at all, but I think I may have provided you with too much text... I do hope you can get at least some understanding of what I’m trying to convey with my ramblings. This was quite exhaustive to write... I'll come back to you >>48241 >>48242 >>48243 >>48244 guys later. >>48248 How do you mean? Or are you the same lainon who brought up the masculine/feminine sexuality aspect previously above?

>>48256 >Haven’t really thought of it that way. >Could you open up your question a bit more? With theories like this, supposed theories on the way of living in modern society, I always would like there to be some kind of way to "apply" them, that works and makes sense, otherwise it is no different than a fairy tale, and useless (at least for me). You offered me: one diving inside, and taking a Jungian, self-observing approach to life. Which might be a good 'general' path to take to avoid the Spectacle (unless, of course, one is only learning Jungian terms to have a better image for the Spectacle, to appear smart and marketable), but I was hoping for a list of activities/occupations that one could do in their average day-to-day, which proves their non-allegiance to the Spectacle (or, proves to oneself that they are not apart of it), without going full Kaczynsky. An activity would be, say: Jerking oneself off to their *own* fantasies all day, whist they sit in a dark room (this is more metaphorical, Jungian theory and Ted Kaczynsky), because in doing this they have no chance of giving in to the Spectacle. Of course, with all of the beneficial actions one can do, there's also the chance of giving into the Spectacle; celebrities have chiseled bodies, if I get one too then my external appearance would be more marketable; Engineers have good paying jobs and are seen as very smart, if I study Math too then my resume would appear very marketable; this celebrity has this sense of style, if I have this sense of style too then I'll be very marketable. When is "appealing to the Spectacle" considered too much (that I throw away my individuality), when I demarcate my life, and decide what I would like to do to spend my time. It wasn't really your point to provide a clear solution, merely to define the Spectacle, and it's issues, and describe philosophy via a knife, but I am wondering what you think should be counted as too much influence by the Spectacle on one's daily motivations.

yes , I meant sex by deep systemic bias . unironically , try to include cloth bags in your symbolism . likely refer to the concept of a Matrix or immersion . you seem very cipherpunk , not very cyberpunk , except wanna-be in your failure to attempt steganography .

>>48241 >pic. rel, your site is nigh-unreadable on mobile I know. I’ve been trying to fix it, but my coding skills are extremely rudimentary, as you might’ve noticed, which is why I’ve stuck with PC compatibility only. I thought that the code string <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> was supposed to do the trick, but apparently you need something more for it to work on mobile as intended. Something so radical that, considering the site’s current stage of development, I consider it to be insofar extreme as to be undoable this early into the project. >Next, the antidote to unhealthy comfort is not battle, but to establish healthy comfort by a combination of removing inducers/binding sites of sickly comfort, and by at least noting and positively connecting (like accepting, thanking) healthy elements of comfort that are present. I can assure you that the same state of being with the comfort factor removed is simply worse, like changing nothing about your life but starting to sleep on the floor will remove a portion of comfort but will not actually improve your situation discernable. I think I see your point. Feel free to correct me if I am misconstruing your post… First of all, the war-like attitude that I’ve taken upon is there for a reason. In my case, the inducers/binding sites of sickly comfort are so tightly woven together with my everyday life that I think I’m going to need a vigorous, tearing pull in order to make room for the healthy elements of comfort either increase or new ones emerge in my life. However, what you must note is that there’s more to this than what the first web pages present. While the “Viator Fleischer” persona and the related web pages (or: “adjunct”) admittedly currently has had an exceedingly large share of focus diverted into and effort invested in it, there is a complementary persona planned for balancing out these attitudes, elements and temperaments (see: https://a-com.neocities.org/the_whole.html ). “Nalathur” has more to do with all the healthy elements like comfort, acceptance and thanking, among other things. It’s the area of my psyche that has had the least development in in overall, so I realize how paramount it is for me to expand to that area, but I’ve decided to move there only after I’ve brought the core of anti-comallodianism into completion. >Secondly, materials consceding to being used as weapons is a sickly state of affairs. As such I don't endorse the extended use of blended surgical/war-like metaphor. Fair enough. I just feel like it’s something I need to go along with – namely, “manning up” and doing the unpleasantest of deeds, because, even if it’s going to hurt badly, it is the right thing to do. Of course, even if implied, it wasn’t my explicit intention to use the knife in the meaning of a weapon (yes, I’m basically structuring the ideology as a matter of waging war with yourself, but the knife isn’t the intended weapon), but now that you mentioned it, people are inextricably going to see it in this light because of the more encompassing war-metaphor that will pull the knife in its area. I’ll have to think of something… >Lastly and shortly because I found point two to be exhaustingly disgusting, the lack of direction you describe seems to be a lack of moral orientation; a lack of discernment of values. I think it’s a matter of point of view, I would say. Everything that “Viator Fleischer” presents, proposes or delves into, stems from unplesant “facts” and beliefs about the world that I’ve assumed over the years. Being alive has its far shair of disgusting, harsh and unpleasant things to it that we just need to deal with. But while these things might be part of being alive (and part of me), they are by no means everything there is to it. Or that’s what I’ve begun (and still want) to believe. >That's all. Thank you very much for your feedback, sincerely. >>48242 >with your cognition of a knife representing masculine sexuality by the same logic , language could represent feminine sexuality . Umm… I’d have to say yes and no to that. It depends on which aspect you want to emphasize when you’re talking about language. If by “feminine sexuality” you’re referring to the cultivating and connection-forming aspect of language, there is some truth to that, sure. But it just as equally holds that there is a separative, contending apsect to it (if we’re to understand “masculine sexuality” as the engending and separative aspects of language) – we can hurt people if we call them names, misguide them intentionally, categorize people into separate classes and castes etc. >>48243 >https://youtu.be/3Z9UHWfOfMc This had something to do with >>48242 right? I watched it about halfway through. Basically it was about how she was diagnosed with cancer and as a result of this she started making some superwoman fun stuff, wasn’t it? What was it that you were trying to convey?

>>48280 >With theories like this, supposed theories on the way of living in modern society, I always would like there to be some kind of way to "apply" them, that works and makes sense, otherwise it is no different than a fairy tale, and useless (at least for me). > You offered me: one diving inside, and taking a Jungian, self-observing approach to life. Which might be a good 'general' path to take to avoid the Spectacle (unless, of course, one is only learning Jungian terms to have a better image for the Spectacle, to appear smart and marketable), but I was hoping for a list of activities/occupations that one could do in their average day-to-day, which proves their non-allegiance to the Spectacle Ah, of course. Yes, I see. Well, I do have some (perhaps a bit naive and too idealistic, but nonetheless) somewhat more practical ideas that would help in realizing anti-comallodianism, and I’ll present some of them shortly, but first I think I need to explain my thinking a bit further, as there’s lots of things that you can’t see on the website, because I haven’t made them available (or have had the chance to write them down, for that matter) yet. I think making this thread would force me to explicate these ideas all at once, so that I could see what my next move or direction to take should be regarding the site’s ensuing development. Anyway, for starters, I think that we can begin to have, if you could say, “spectacle-free” activities only after we have carved a new way of thinking about things; a new ideological “point” on which to stand on and from which to oppose the Spectacle. It’s really hard to oppose anything, if all that you've got to work with as a starting point is the kind of defeatist environment where the dominating mantra is “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism”. By my own admission, I too am guilty of falling for this notion, but this doesn’t mean that we couldn’t device counter measures to the system. I am of the mind that, if you can’t change the system, then, at the very least, you can change the individual and this way hope to kick off a systemic transformation if enough people get on board with it (that’s a big *if*, but that’s no excuse not to try; moreover, I think this is basically what today’s leftists are trying to do, but more on a cultural level, whereas I’d like to take it a couple steps further towards the individual level). Of course, there’s always the danger present that our new methods, activities and tactics end up being recuperated and assimilated back into the system, but I suspect that it’s a lot harder to do if you’ve succesfully managed to define and sturdily establish a worldview, an ideology from which the activites or occupations derive their meaning and purpose from and what it is that you stand for. As for the possible “anti-Spectacular” activites… 1. Performing situations where either an individual or a group of individuals attempt to achieve rare moments of thrill and excitement vital to a well-lived life that you can’t experience in everyday life through experimental means of sublime and artistic nature. Basically the same things as what the Situationists tried to do with their political pranks, artistic antics and media stunts, but maybe with the distinction that, instead of seeking an audience for which to perform for political aims, you seek an audience for which to perform for your own spiritual aims. This shouldn’t be interpreted as being an egoistic or narcissitic activity, because your goal isn’t to spew just any nonsense you can and be done with it, but rather to express, for instance a common feeling that resonates with all the present participants and which connects you with other people. The attitude that you should be having while doing such a performance is of a self-sacrificing one, of giving without a promise of receving anything in return (this is part of the reason why the knife is directed towards the subject in the symbol of anti-comallodianism). 2. Order of Nine Angels had a couple of interesting ideas for activites, even if all the rest of what they espouse are way too radical for me. What most interests me are their rituals (like lying still for an entire night without moving) and the concept of “insight roles”. In short, basically private rituals that are not meant to be “instagrammed” or tweeted about, and which have a real (not an empty simulacrum of a real, like what how most of the Christian practices nowadays have become), personal significance and meaning to them, no matter how seemingly stupid and meaningless they might seem from an outsider’s perspective. Re-ritualization of life, is say it in nutshell, is what I’m getting at there. For instance, I’ve adopted a ritual of traveling to a place that holds deep personal significance to me, where I take every year a kind of “autumnal baptism” at a small lake that prepares me mentally for the winter season. There are a couple more of rituals like these that I have, but they are either too private to tell people about or too insignificant for there to be anything to tell. Nevertheless, rituals such as these make me feel grounded, envigorated, alive and instill me with a sense of living a fulfilling life. Above I had the expression “tearing” to try to describe an aspect of anti-comallodianism, and you could equate it with Huizinga’s presentation of the concept of play as constituting culture in his book Homo Ludens, because they both share a goal, namely of “heightening yourself from the mundane”. My future hope is that, if enough like-minded individuals were to take part in this… “movement”, we could do more grandiose and profound rituals and performances, something like what was talked about in the movie My Dinner With Andre where the group of actors went into the woods to enact their own symbolic death. 3. Because of my fear of these activities being co-opted, I’ve – as you might see – heavily emphasised activities of mental and ephemeral nature. Despite this, and even if commodity fetishism is being heavily discouraged here, I think there can be positive instances of it as well, as long as it isn’t done instinctually, without the person’s conscious awareness (like bying Nike or Adidas, because you want to “just do it” or because “Nike is Nike”, if you see what I mean) and for the sake of social prestige. I’ve called it in one instance “ideological saturation”, “symbolization” on another and even “transsubstantiation” somewhere, but they don’t quite seem to be the same process, so there’s still some conceptual differentiation to be done there. Basically it’s about impregnating and filling an ordinary object with philosophical insight so as to turn it into a psychological tool to help yourself on your path of spiritual development (any mundane object will do, but, in my case, I’ve obviously picked the knife). You can manufacture a knife, but you can’t hire someone to manufacture a personal, authentic meaning, is the logic here in essence. 1/2

>>48280 This isn’t the only possible use of this method. You can, so it currently appears to me, also apply the method into life itself: pick any random concept and use it as a metaphor to produce a mental shift in your worldview – for instance, take the concept of game, book or lightbulp and use it to redefine, to reframe a conversation, a meeting, your life or the whole of reality, if you so choose. The point of this exercise is to induce a qualitative change in your current habitus, if you feel like the way you currently conduct yourself in everyday life feels lacking and unfulfilling. 4. This might fall into the first mentioned category of situations, but Zizek had this interesting idea on how to save romance in modern society. He began by saying that nowadays, when we’re having sex with a real partner, we treat the partner as an object to masturbate. The way Zizek proposed we could save romance was by arranging a date where we both brough our sex toys with us, she with her dildo and he with his fleshlight, and we’d sit down and inserted the dildo inside the fleslight and start observing as they do their own thing. Now, because we did our “superego duty”, and pleasure is being done out there for our amusement, the “real pleasure” comes, either in the form of a conversation with a cup of tea or as surplus sex if, by chance, we the day led us into having actual, authentic sex with each other. These are just the most essential ones that came to my mind at the moment. I do have to remind that none of these are in any way immune to co-opting, but I think that they aren’t exactly “commercial-friendly” either, as they derive their meaning and sense from the individual himself who has the right kind of mindset to engage in them (namely, a mindset of self/spirit refinement, of self-overcoming, of experimentation and of expanding or increasing one’s conscious awareness) in order to get in touch with a profound, transcendent experience, which cannot be sold, traded or exchanged for money, image, fame or popularity; it is ultimately these sorts of immaterial, unconsumable, somewhat private experiences that anti-comallodianism at its core seeks to produce. >unless, of course, one is only learning Jungian terms to have a better image for the Spectacle, to appear smart and marketable Sadly, this was how I thought of it in the earliest form of the project. The idea was to produce a “spectacular confusion” or something like that by using big words and obscure expressions. I guess there was quite a lot of snobbishness and neediness of appearing smarter than others involved as well, but I came to reject most of these tendencies in me the moment I noticed them, and along with them went the older version of the project (what’s left of it are the texts on the page titled “Trash”). After that I decided to move in a completely new direction. It was actually as a result of this “internal-gazing” that made me aware of all the phoneyness, which is why I took the method as my main approach and objective – to gently push people towards self-reflection (this is the second reason why the knife in the logo is directed towads the subject). But yeah, I do recognize this danger. I try to combat it by asking myself “do I understand the concepts I’m dealing with on an emotional level, or is this just my empty intellectualization?” >An activity would be, say: Jerking oneself off to their *own* fantasies all day, whist they sit in a dark room (this is more metaphorical, Jungian theory and Ted Kaczynsky), because in doing this they have no chance of giving in to the Spectacle. Of course, with all of the beneficial actions one can do, there's also the chance of giving into the Spectacle; celebrities have chiseled bodies, if I get one too then my external appearance would be more marketable; Engineers have good paying jobs and are seen as very smart, if I study Math too then my resume would appear very marketable; this celebrity has this sense of style, if I have this sense of style too then I'll be very marketable. When is "appealing to the Spectacle" considered too much (that I throw away my individuality), when I demarcate my life, and decide what I would like to do to spend my time. Whether or not you actually meant it, I just can’t help but to interpret “jerking oneself off to their *own* fantasies all day” as a criticism towards me and my philosophy-oriented ideology building (if it was, it’s okay, I don’t take it personally). This is actually something I’m trying to resist however I can. The point of the theory isn’t in itself or its endless contemplation outside the Spectacle’s realm of influence. It’s to live a fulfilling life. >When is "appealing to the Spectacle" considered too much (that I throw away my individuality), when I demarcate my life, and decide what I would like to do to spend my time. >It wasn't really your point to provide a clear solution, merely to define the Spectacle, and it's issues, and describe philosophy via a knife, but I am wondering what you think should be counted as too much influence by the Spectacle on one's daily motivations. You could argue that me simply by publishing this all on the Internet places me inside the Spectacle’s regime (as being “appealing to the Spectacle”), because I am conveying these thoughts computer-to-computer, instead of speaking to you face to face, directly, which is still kind of a hot and media sexy medium, all things considered. The Internet, in general, these days seems like one big popularity contest anyway, ready to be swallowed by the entertainment industry, turned into easily-digestible mush that people then gobble up at their leisurly time to show to other people that they too are “in on the joke” (the latest I’ve seen of this are pepe and wojak t-shirts being sold on a supermarket close to where I live), so just by being here I am taking part in it, whether or not I liked, intended or wanter it. As for the question of when it’s considered “too much”, I don’t think I have a clear answer to provide you. It’s partly a question of quantification, I think: a question of being able to set a clear numerical limit to your consumption habits, and I wish I knew a way to quantify it. This is, again, a type of question I haven’t really had to think about until now (which is why it’s another good question to present). Perhaps it’s all a matter of intentions. For instance, I’d like to think it possible to “masquerade” your “anti-spectacle” motives with the Spectacle’s own appearances and methods in order to feed the poison to the people before they can even noticed it, but we’ve probably seen too many examples of this going horribly wrong insofar as to be able to deem it useless in its effects (that’s because it either goes over the consumer’s head or it becomes another cool thing to consume). Approached from another perspective, we all probably know that watching either Netflix or Youtube or doing social media 24h/7 is far from Spectacle-free life, so that gives us the bottom of the our little meter. We also know that living totally off the grid is the opposite extreme, so now we have the top of the meter. Now it’s all a question of setting the ideal point, but I’ll have to think about it more. Any suggestions to give? 2/2

>>48368 >which is still kind of a hot and media sexy medium I meant that the internet is still a "hot" medium...

> If by “feminine sexuality” you’re referring to the cultivating and connection-forming aspect of language, > there is some truth to that, sure. But it just as equally holds that there is a separative, > contending aspect to it (if we’re to understand “masculine sexuality” as the engendering and separative aspects of language) or you can consider the phallic and enveloping symbol dichotomy . sex-based nationalism makes people believe masculinity forms hierarchy , but femininity and masculinity both form from artificial social construction based on late principles , except that game theory causes femininity or "proto-feminism" to absorb kyriarchy ( an early if not first principle ) while masculinity just describes whatever remains after that . social constructs exist to try to rectify intrinsic inequality , not necessarily unfairness , but injustice and oppression committed by kyriarchal forces . its the truth and only love keeps us alive our personhood would die by grand narratives losing the truth of free will . I do n0t ask you to either fear or embrace feminism , like I do ; but through fun keep truth sacred .

>>48295 >you seem very cipherpunk , not very cyberpunk , except wanna-be in your failure to attempt steganography . Oh, you must be referring to the Hexadecimal code that was used in some of the texts on the Trash page, right? To be honest, and as I mentioned in the lengthy rants above, those texts are from an earlier project which I had to terminate for good reasons. As some of them were left unfinished, I decided to fill in the blanks with nonsense code for the sake of looks. But I suppose your allegation of me not being cyberpunk is somewhat on point. >unironically , try to include cloth bags in your symbolism . Cloth bags, eh? How come? >likely refer to the concept of a Matrix or immersion . cloth bags = matrix/immersion? Am I reading this right? At any rate, incorporating it can't be done, because the current symbolism is meant to be restricted to depict a specific kind of ethos, and diluting with it anything would compromise its wanted effect. It might be something I'd be willing to consider in regards to its opposing sector ("Nalathur"). >>48423 I've been having a hard time trying to get what you mean and to write a proper response to this. I can't put it off any longer, so I'll address it to the best of my abilities. >or you can consider the phallic and enveloping symbol dichotomy . So, in opposition to the dichotomy between the cultivating and engendering aspect of language, I should consider its phallic and enveloping dichotomy, is what you're saying? I presume that the enveloping thingy has something to do with the previously mentioned cloth bag, right? All in all, isn't this just you saying what I already said, but by using different terms, or does "phallic and enveloping symbol dichotomy" concern the ensuing sentence? >sex-based nationalism makes people believe masculinity forms hierarchy , but femininity and masculinity both form from artificial social construction based on late principles except that game theory causes femininity or "proto-feminism" to absorb kyriarchy ( an early if not first principle ) while masculinity just describes whatever remains after that . So, you're basically saying that 1) "masculinity = hierarchy formation" is a myth 2) that what we call "masculinity" and "femininity" are both in general faulty concepts, because they are derived from artificial social constructions, is that right? >except that game theory causes femininity or "proto-feminism" to absorb kyriarchy ( an early if not first principle ) while masculinity just describes whatever remains after that . Try as I might, I just do not think I understand what you're trying to get at with this. What does game theory have anything got to do with gendered/sexual denominations? Are you saying that "femininity" has been corrupted by mathematics, which then leads to the social system of kyriarchy (which, if I got it right, is simply describing any social relationship where there is an unequal distribution of power), and this is part of the reason why the concept of "femininity" is a faulty one? >social constructs exist to try to rectify intrinsic inequality , not necessarily unfairness , but injustice and oppression committed by kyriarchal forces . I don't think so. Social constructs is essentially any abstract verbal entity that we utilize when interacting with the surrounding world. This doesn't mean that there couldn't be harmful ones also. If you meant that we can create new social constructs by which to "rectify intrinsic inequality", then yeah. I do agree. >its the truth and only love keeps us alive our personhood would die by grand narratives losing the truth of free will . I'm not very fond of utterances of this sort, because they aren't meant to be "understood", but to be felt. There is a time and a place for them, and this is not the right one for either. As for the problem of our personhood dying as a result of grand narratives "losing the truth of free will" that you brought up, while a valid concern, I'd have to say that it isn't as much a matter of "grand narratives losing the truth of free will", because almost all of the current grand narratives are espousing or upholding some notion of "free will". Even Fascists have it, but that's basically restricted solely to the Übermensch, but that's a whole other discussion that we shouldn't get to now. It's rather that people are starting to lose the meaning of "free will". How "free" can you call someone who is taken in by the deliberatively addicting and dependency-inducing mechanisms used to create and develop basically all the things internet and technology related, and who can't quit even if they wanted to? Not very free, I imagine. >but through fun keep truth sacred . >fun Naturally, but that'll be my kind of fun enjoyed on my own terms, as is to be expected.

>>48368 > The way Zizek proposed we could save romance was by arranging a date where we both brough our sex toys with us, she with her dildo and he with his fleshlight, and we’d sit down and inserted the dildo inside the fleslight and start observing as they do their own thing. Zizek needs to stop doing so much cocaine,

>>48656 Lol, nah man. If anything he should do even more coke so that he could churn out more fun ideas :D

That is a kitchen knife. It is a tool for preparing food. The way you talk about knives makes me think you don't actually use them very much. I think if you're going to use a thing that exists in reality as a core symbol for your ideas, it's important to actually understand that thing on a personal level and incorporate that understanding, or else your ideas will seem silly to people who do.

>>48719 >That is a kitchen knife. It is a tool for preparing food. Yes. Yes it is… Apparently nothing of what I wrote above (or on the site, for that matter) is getting through to you, so I’ll present it as simply and clearly as I can in audio-visual format, which presumably is the type of content you are most accustomed to. So, this is all just for you.