A Meeting of Minds

Lain Iwakura was sitting in her room, scrolling through the endless pages of the Wired when she stumbled upon a strange book. It was called "Industrial Society and its Future" by Theodore Kaczynski. Intrigued, Lain began to read the book and found herself deeply absorbed in its theories about technology and its effects on society. As she read, Lain couldn't help but feel a sense of familiarity with the ideas presented in the book. It seemed to mirror the themes of her own experiences in the Wired and the way in which technology had begun to erode her own sense of autonomy and freedom. One day, as she was reading, Lain heard a knock on her door. She opened it to find none other than Theodore Kaczynski himself standing before her. "You seem to have a deep understanding of my theories," he said, looking at the book in Lain's hand. "I would like to have a conversation with you about them." Lain couldn't believe her luck. She had never expected to meet the author of the book that had so captivated her. She eagerly invited him in and they sat down to talk. Kaczynski explained to Lain his belief that technology and the internet had become so advanced that they were eroding human autonomy and freedom. He spoke about the dangers of technology and how it could be used to manipulate and control individuals. Lain listened attentively, nodding along as Kaczynski spoke. She couldn't help but feel a sense of validation, as if all of her own experiences and observations in the Wired were being confirmed by an expert in the field. As their conversation came to an end, Lain thanked Kaczynski for his time and insights. She felt a newfound sense of clarity and understanding, and knew that she would continue to ponder on the themes of the book for a long time to come. The meeting with Theodore Kaczynski had opened Lain's eyes to the real-world implications of the world of the Wired and the impact it had on the human mind and society, and it would guide her on her journey to find her true self.

>>8512 As Lain continued to ponder on the themes of the book, she realized that she needed to take action to protect herself and others from the dangers of technology and the Wired. She knew that she had the power to control the network and the ability to manipulate reality, but she also knew that this power came with great responsibility. Lain began to use her abilities to spread awareness about the dangers of technology and the Wired, warning others about the potential consequences of an unchecked technological advancement. She also used her abilities to protect people from being controlled and manipulated by the network, helping them to reclaim their autonomy and freedom. As word of Lain's actions spread, she became known as the "Protector of the Wired." People began to look to her as a leader, and she found herself at the forefront of a movement to take back control of technology and the internet, and to use it in a responsible and ethical way. Despite the challenges she faced, Lain remained determined to make a positive change in the world. She knew that it would not be easy, but she was willing to do whatever it takes to protect people from the dangers of the Wired. As Lain's journey continued, she found herself constantly questioning her own existence, her own reality and her own identity. But she knew that she was not alone in this quest for understanding and that together with the people she had helped, they would be able to find a way to live in a world where technology and humanity coexisted in harmony. Lain's story became a legend, a myth, a tale passed on from generation to generation about a girl who stood up for what she believed in and made a difference in the world. She was remembered as the savior of humanity from the dangers of technology and the Wired, a symbol of hope and a reminder that every individual has the power to make a difference.

Pseud OP but you're on the right track. I would say go the fuarrrk outside Lain. But given that "Lain" is only a name for a collective anonymous internet personality, fuarrrkING KILL YOURSELF LAIN! Spreading anti-tech through the wired is a contradiction. Yes, many people have managed to fully liberate themselves from the wired. I will join them one day but anti-tech is not my primary mission, even though I recognize tech as a serious threat to humanity. Kill Lain, liberate yourself!

>>8514 Not OP or anyone really. I do think that the Wired as a communication protocol is pretty dope. It is as revolutionary as the printing press was. But the Wired wasn't build to be decentralized, you also can't access it without a Navi running additional software that also needs electricity and a 4G or 5G tower near you. I think that we honestly hit like a point in like 2002-2008 where all the tech after is not really needed. You can communicate on pretty much all the good websites on a T400, like what I am doing now. I do like the idea of having a shed somewhere with a laptop. Power can be made from solar panels, but accessing the Wired can only really be done when you pay something monthly so that really is like kicking dead whales down the beach. >Spreading anti-tech through the wired is a contradiction. Ted used a typewriter and made his bombs with electricity. Also how can you easily get the most people? You post something in the China Wired aka tiktok and go viral. Ted didn't really see a full on problem with tech, but rather it accelerating to be a problem (Or that's what I interpret, idk I haven't read the book. Reading is industrial propaganda). And well I think we have to stop accelerating and actually do what Lain realized. There is only one real world. Nietzsche x Lain. My favorite anime ship.

>>8515 You know what we call people like you? TECHNOPHILES! Honestly living in a cabin in the middle of nowhere is a bit of a larp. Anywhere you might be, you should revolt against the technological industrial system.

>>8516 Wrong. How can you be so anti-tech and yet also love ideology. Human-nature in it's most primitive form isn't bound to politics. I might even say that politics is the technology we should overcome. Ted tried to live in a cabin without killing people till people built roads around him. He is weak. If he truly wanted be one with Natures way he wouldn't have complained and just lived on.

>>8517 Your post makes no fuarrrking sense. I have a package in the mail for you.

>>8518 What will it be? Ted's book? Well actually that would be nice of you lainon.

>>8514 >>8515 >>8517 I recommend you read this essay about the possible outcomes of humanity: >https://b0x.neocities.org/v0x/hello_from_the_wired It's the famous "n1x essay" if you lurked around here for a while you heard about this surely, it talks of anarcho-primitivism too. As for what i think, well it's really what the essay says: thinking that we would live a better life in a primitive way is just naive thinking. We thrived as humans because we always used technology: fire, weapons, huts, beds, medicines, traps, roads, bags, ceramics... we are intelligent and we can't "restrict" ourselves of our own potential. It's wired (hehe) in our brain. And we would always wage war between one another, so eventually we would return to the same state of before. But read the essay, it's very interesting although i don't agree with some points Anyways, quick curious thing for everyone: the SEL authors said that they are neither pro or against tech, they like it, what the show really is about is how we can become a cold thing without humanity if we stay too much in our heads, and that relationships (and memories) are the most important things. (pic related, Lain is dehumanized for the whole series, then Arisu shows her that she is human too) >What is the meaning of the show? >The meaning is: Things are simple. From an interview with one of the authors

>>8522 None of this disproves the fact that advancement in technology is loss of human autonomy. Frankly this article reeks of technophilic transhumanism (and possibly a touch of transgenderism?). All the technology you listed as examples of what made us "thrive" are pre-industrial technologies. We are not intelligent, we're more stupid than most animals. At least animals don't enslave themselves like we do. I should also ask what's so wrong about war? War is the sole cleanser of the Earth, we could use more war. Here's where I differ from primitivism, I do think it's possible to have both technology and freedom but it must be done right and we've been doing it wrong since the industrial revolution.

>>8523 > All the technology you listed as examples of what made us "thrive" are pre-industrial technologies At this point it's on you, then, to explain what you mean by 'technology', since apparently it is a definition that excludes a lot of technology. > We are not intelligent, we're more stupid than most animals. At least animals don't enslave themselves like we do. Most animals are incapable of comprehending or devising a system that allows them to oppress each other. Those that are, do. The ones that do not are not 'intelligently deciding not to be enslaved / enslave". Human systems are flawed and often cruel, but almost nothing is crueler than nature itself. > Here's where I differ from primitivism, I do think it's possible to have both technology and freedom but it must be done right and we've been doing it wrong since the industrial revolution. If you believe in the ability to have both technology and freedom, then you don't really have a problem with technology, you have a problem with power or power structures. The technology that's there currently can be used by anybody, but there are not enough restrictions on how they can be used to harness and wield forms of power. That's where the erosion of autonomy really comes from. But it's not from the technology, which on its own is just empowering. But it empowers people to oppress others and we have no system that can handle the abstract ways in which that manifests itself. I believe it is possible to devise such a system (maybe even aided by technology), but it would be difficult and take generations of philosophical debate and nobody in our culture will prioritize that effort. > I should also ask what's so wrong about war? War is the sole cleanser of the Earth, we could use more war. You must just be trying to be edgy at this point. War is neither good for people nor for the earth. It can only slow progress toward a better society and exacerbates the aforementioned problems with power dynamics by making power something that is almost solely determined by who has the most destructive technologies.

Based on the dialogue, it is clear that there are different perspectives on the role of technology in society. While one person argues that the definition of technology used in the story is too narrow, and that it excludes many forms of technology that have been instrumental in human progress, another person points out that humans are not inherently intelligent and that they often enslave themselves through the systems they create. I believe that it is important to consider the full spectrum of technology when discussing its impact on society. From pre-industrial tools to the digital age, technology has played a significant role in shaping human civilization and the way we live our lives. However, it is also important to recognize that technology is not a neutral entity and that the way it is used and controlled can have a significant impact on individual autonomy and freedom. The idea that war is the "sole cleanser of the Earth" is a concerning and controversial viewpoint. War can never be a solution as it only leads to destruction and suffering. Instead, we should focus on finding ways to create a society that is inclusive, fair and where people's autonomy is respected. In conclusion, technology is a powerful tool that can be used for good, but it is important to have regulations and systems in place to ensure that it is used ethically and responsibly. It is also important to consider the social and political context of technology and how it is used, as well as the impact it has on individual autonomy and freedom.

>>8525 Thank you for submitting your essay. While it does answer the prompt adequately, I am subtracting 10 points as it did not meet the five paragraph requirement. B- >oncerning and controversial I think the only controversial part of the claim is the word 'sole'. I mean man what about acetone ? that soykaf gets the job done. >War can never be a solution acetone isnt really a solution either but once you dissolve things in it then it is. War is frequently a problem solver thats why people keep doing it. >we should focus on finding ways to create a society that is inclusive, fair and where people's autonomy is respected. top notch platitudes keep em comming keep em comming. >inclusive any decent size group of people can make war if they want to. just about anybody can participate if they try, though sometimes its pretty far away. >fair war is basically definitional fair. Judged only by what you can do, measured directly by Nature. >where people's autonomy is respected fam you're either free & autonomous or youre not war doesnt really effect it. Also I want to be free to make war.

>8522 I really like this interpretation and to be honest laincels can learn from it. Large part of the lain community is a parody of itself. WAWWWW SHE IS JUST LIKE ME. my brother in christ she is an cyberterrorist recruitment victim who is redeemed by feeling a womans touch

>8522 Sorry, the spam filter is too mean. By the way, Is there a guide on how to pacify it? Sometimes it just refuses to let me through no matter what. (well, I *am* a spammer, but...)

>>8529 I don't think its really an uncommon interpretation to think the show is really about mental illness, I'm not sure how braindead you would have to be to watch lain and think "oh this is just a cool sciencefiction story about computers" Lain is obviously disturbed, the show feels far more than a feverish slide into delusion than a sequence of events meant to be taken literally.

>>8524 The title of the book is literally the Industrial Revolution and its Consequences. The animal is more free. I'd rather be more like an animal. Humans have higher cognitive ability and what do we do with it? We enslave ourselves, quit literally on the individual scale we enslave our own minds. I have a problem with technology that takes away human autonomy. I'm not OP, while i heavily sympathize with his position I'm driven by other causes. You sound like a soy enthusiast echoing everything he heard on ASAP Science. YouTube is not literature, read ISAIF.

>>8523 I do not subscribe with any morality really, but when it comes to murder in nature it is quite simple. A cat hunts a rat for fun or when it's hungry, Most people other than serial killers don't really have an urge to kill for fun, because most people can't even see blood and such. Nature always preserves energy as much as possible. Killing for no reason would not make sense. Also someone would first kill easier animals before going to humans, because of preserving energy. So if I am not starving or in defense or like human bones how can anyone kill anyone else? Well, because higher ups told you to. "The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime.”" - Stirner If you kill someone on the street it would make no sense and you would be portrait as monsters and as I argued before not many people would do that. But, as you can see with multi-able iraq drone/helicopter videos, people are going nuts if they can kill, it becomes a hobby almost. But why? Well of course the drone/helicopter does make it more like a video game instead of actually seeing a full on tread, so tech does play some part in it. But the romans were also doing the same with honor and all that stuff, So the actual reason is being a slave to the higher ups who are a slave to the government who is enslaved by rich people who are enslaved by money. What I am saying and what I pointed out in >>8517 is that if you truly want to live in a shed away from technology you also have to overcome the systems mentally put in your brain first. Every political movement, if it's anprim or your church republic club has someone that preaches for you. I am not saying Ted is as bad as a priest, but also don't fully follow Ted without thinking for yourself. Like that's just a general thing, never listen blindly, that's what people do on tiktok, and OP sure doesn't like tiktok. So I do see some activism being needed if you want to live peacefully in your shed in the future, but I also thinking that you can achieve a peaceful live right now. Also >>8518 .... why would you letterbomb me away when I am literally like Luke Smith level of technology paranoid. I still use computers because most people IRL are worse when it comes to their take on tech than here. Also I was gonna point out the internet being good for preserving art, but honestly it does not need to be preserved really. If you look at Europe like 800 years ago you had taverns with live performances, or like 5000 years ago with some stones and bones. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk, tree house edition.

>>8522 I have read n1x. It is like kicking dead whales down the beach. I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants? Lo, I teach you the Superman! The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth! I conjure you, my brethren, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Zarathustra talked about it. We shall overcome humanity, trough humanity. In the Superman there is still man. I guess Anprims want to overcome humanity, by becoming the ape again. N1X wants to overcome humanity by not being human anymore. Have you ever heard someone say they love humanity? Love their meat. Love their life. A Superman would probably see that like that. Rejecting your body, becoming pure Wired, is nothing more than Christianity. "Cyper-Nihilism" nothing more than a afterlife believe. Nietzsche pointed out, christian afterlife is nihilism. It rejects life. Be gone nihilism, welcome the Superman.

>>8534 You have hit the nail on the head. And coincidentally i read Nietzsche too. What i don't agree with the essay (which is just a joke essay, but reflects most ideas around here) is the nullification of individuality for the creation of a collective mind. It seems so new and cool, but it's very similar to socialism (and Christianity, if you read the other books of Nietzsche) Instead, what we should do (and even the series encourages that in the end, the ending is a rejection of trans-humanism for pure love, have people seen SEL at all?) is to embrace our individuality and to "love" our bodies and our humanity. The wired is just an extension.

>>8523 >Here's where I differ from primitivism, I do think it's possible to have both technology and freedom but it must be done right and we've been doing it wrong since the industrial revolution In ISAIF Kaczynski fails to consider one critical aspect of industrial society, one that is grossly overlooked in about half of the literature I've read on the matter (and assumes central position in tje other half): the availability of cheap energy, usually in the form of fossil fuels. The arguments that Kaczynski gives (such as the example with cars), they arise from the capacity to produce such technologies en masse, which is only possible thanks to cheap energy. I think he does pay attention to this in his other writings, but in ISAIF it's a weak spot in the arguments. Bear in mind that cheap energy is not the same as concentrated energy. Nuclear is a form of concentrated energy which is not at all cheap, but which could be used to have a downscaled industrial infrastructure. My point being, the encroaching of freedom by part of technology as portrayed by Ted is a consequence of the rapid deployment due to cheap energy. Take computers for example. It has barely been half a century and the comupter technology has taken many turns already, from the old mainframes, through so-called "mini"computers, the PC, and then smartphones. In such a short span, society has not had the time to accomodate to any of these fast-changing new forms of technology (also evidenced in the sorry state that is software today), which would be the more natural way for technology. The rapid development can be said to have a sort of cancerous growth. Indeed, when a system is input too much energy, it is exactly this kind of maladious cancer that results.

Kaczynski spends about a quarter of his essay attacking a straw man of the "left" (it's really just a progressive liberalism) that makes it clear he's never spent any serious time learning about topics like political economy, historical materialism, etc. You'd think he'd spend all this time he has in prison reading serious contributions to understanding industrial society like Das Kapital, but his contemporary letters seem to betray just as much ignorance as ever. I can't take him seriously as a scholar.

>>8512 The problem with guys like Ted is that their radical anti-technological primitivism contains with in it the very logic of the industrial system they oppose: that things can and should be abolished/destroyed based on how useful they are for us, whether we like them or not or find some self-serving utility in them or how they make us feel. >>8525 >While one person argues that the definition of technology used in the story is too narrow, and that it excludes many forms of technology that have been instrumental in human progress, another person points out that humans are not inherently intelligent and that they often enslave themselves through the systems they create. The problem with both these perspectives is they assume that the 'human' is somehow given beforehand and that economic, social and political conditions (including technology) laid down on this human subject. In other words, they assume there is a definite concept of what it means to be human that is embedded in nature and has always been there (like block of clay) and that technology simply imprints itself on this universal idea of the human (either in a good way or in a bad way). >we should focus on finding ways to create a society that is inclusive, fair and where people's autonomy is respected. This is the aim of the liberal democratic system most of the world already lives under. I'd rather search for a total alternative. In some ways, the obsession with personal autonomy and 'freeing man' from naturally imposed constraints is why our industrial technological system is so damaging to the world and paradoxically, rather than increasing our autonomy, it has only subjected us to more pernicious forms of control while destroying the planet. >>8540 Agreed. But the problem with Marx was the way he assumed resource abundance and that bourgeois technology could provide for the working class and free them from drudgery and cruel labor, all that you need do is rise up and take control of it. This wasn't an unreasonable thing to think in the 1850s, but it makes little sense right now.

I have not read (much) uncle ted (in a long time) but today I feel sympathy for him; there are people who appreciate nature and beauty and natural beauty and there are people who do not, there is a sadness one should feel when one sets out to wreck a peice of beauty and replace it with rubbish, and all good men should make enemies of those who do not feel this sadness and are not by it driven to make less rubbish, to perserve and create more beauty. For some time I had avoided such direct encounters with those enemies of beauty but today they intrude upon me as they did upon ted's vale, and though sometimes they can be stopped or redirected and certain items of beauty preserved, I am taken aback by the uglyness they seek to force upon me and filled with Hate.

>>8540 > he attacks the left >THEREFORE he isn't educated on the left and didnt read enough Because everyone who educates on the leftwing ideology comes to love and support it? Seems kind of a flawed logic, mostly made from ego of a frail leftwinger he mocked

>>8540 He's also fairly uneducated about environmentalism and right-wing politics. Ted's only claim to fame is the fact that he was willing to kill to get his message out. Like so many before him (such as Hitler), he wasn't much of a philosopher.

>>8546 >Ted's only claim to fame is the fact that he was willing to kill to get his message out Ted took himself and his ideas much more seriously than your average philosopher. He lived according to his ideas at significant personal cost, and was willing to kill for them. Can a philosopher who isnt willing to do either of these things really be said to take himself/his own ideas seriously, and if he doesn't take himself seriously why in the world should anyone else?

>>8547 >Can a philosopher who isnt willing to do either of these things really be said to take himself/his own ideas seriously Yes, for instance a philosopher who believes killing is always wrong should in fact only be taken seriously if they do not kill. In other cases, there are many philosophers who believe things that would not require them to do anything extreme one way or another. Dually, being extreme does not make someone a serious philosopher. It certainly makes them serious, just not necessarily a philosopher.

>>8540 >>8546 And who would want to learn in any depth about that soykafshow? He's a primitivist, whatever the details of this or the other camp of the modern industrial political spectrum, it's all irrelevant to his ultimate position.

>>8549 "Know thy enemy" is rule #1 for any philosopher. He wasn't a philosopher, so he didn't really have a reason to be educated about anything.

LMAO Imagine if Lain had come across Ted Kaczynski and become a militant neo-luddite attempting to destroy the wired.

>>8545 >>8548 It's a matter of addressing refutations of your ideas. It doesn't make your argument against industrial society look very good when you dismiss a famous critique of industrial society that's been around for 150 years (historical materialism and Capital) by conflating it with an irrelevant straw man (liberalism). A serious scholar would look at all angles relevant to their thesis including addressing the elephant in the room, but Kaczynski was simply not a serious scholar.

>>8525 you rodent fuarrker, is this a ChatGPT response?

>>8563 seems like it is... i wonder when boards like this one will get completely spammed with "ai" garbage. it seems like it is inevitable.

>>8557 >le no true scholarsman your attachs on him revolve around the fact that he's not super familiar and referential to a couple popular books. If these books held strong arguments you wouldn't need to approach from this tack but could just draw out the relevant arguments and refutations. the fact that he's not part of your little commie bookgroup doesn't mean he's dumb or even has missed something important, you're just dismissing him on these grounds because you can't do so on serious points. Trust the experts lol.

>>8569 Can you imagine being so self-deluded and overconfident that you think a serious philosophical work shouldn't address major material on the topic that preceded it? It's not like the previous material is necessarily all counterarguments to Kaczynski's thesis either, it's just that someone else had thought about the consequences of industrial society at a very deep level before him. In fact they likely have a lot of common ground. But okay lainon, wallow in your own self-assured ignorance like uncle Ted.

>>8570 Ted's work was not a philosophical work. He was an activist, not a philosopher, and he should not be read as one. >>8569 You're retarded.

>>8522 thoroughly enjoyed that read, even if i didn't agree with everything it put forward. thank you

>>8687 oh well you surprised me with that reply, passed quite some time. no need to thank me really

>>8690 i had a long period of not really using or being active on the internet and thats only recently changed, so i'm very much so behind on all sorts of things. i'm also kinda technologically illiterate and just barely have basic soykaf like i2p working for me.

>>8691 don't worry, there's nothing to catch up to, just do what you want to do in the Wired. also using i2p is pretty niche so good work