Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LuciferX

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 145
1
Eh, I think it might finally be curtains for me and this site: php just went full HTML.  I am writing this onnwhat looks like 2pt font in unformatted cells.  This is why I no longer write about breakdowns.

2
Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: March 21, 2017, 10:19:44 pm »

being mindful:


I liked the train analogy w.r.t. tracing provenance of thought.  Then the distinction between zen zoomed-in single-pointedness of mind and "split attention" exercise made me think about how "awareness" in our western interpretation typically favors the first interpretation and sometimes neglects the latter. When the former is understood by way of an analytic breakdown, it tends to think the point of being mindful is at the end of dissecting and categorizing the various elements of consciousness that were made present by "interrupting the train of thought".  I find this misleading because it neglects how the experience being observed is functionally different to the one occurring before the act of interruption.  No worries, because the important bit to me is that this still allows me to discern that there are different ways of interacting skillfully with the world.  The western thinker who takes this on is Heidegger, with his distinction between the ready and the present to hand.  If I want to know what it means to write (type, and how) it is difficult to analyze the experience as it is occurring as it would occasion a 'break' in the flow of the activity that represents it.  When the keyboard itself fails, breaks-down, and I am presented with the obstinate refusal of it's function, then I start to analyze the keyboard, take it apart, put it back together.  Yes, the keyboard investigated by breakdown is going to be examined and rendered in detail.  The argument, however, is that this is not (phenomenologically) the same keyboard that I use to write.

So there are really two different trains, most of the time I don't even know which one is mine.

3
Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:36:03 am »
Right.  Freedom not as the trivial this or that. Freedom as Are you fucking kidding me, this can mean anything at all to me, in the first place!?!

4
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Noncommercial Branding
« on: March 20, 2017, 12:00:47 am »
Yeah, and if I reserve copyright, can anyone explain to me how I can add additional fair-use CC attribution?  I mean, given that I may, how does the legislation intercede when owner discovers, for example, non-attributed use of IP for commercial purposes, or something else that would however violate "fair-use"?  Just thinking about it makes me want to dismiss all copyright, unless the gods of legalese have somehow figured all this out? (actually asking)

5
Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: March 19, 2017, 11:30:48 pm »
So yeah, people want dem strong absolute freedoms so they can continue to avenge their condition. Dems be reproducing for themselves the very limits which they insist on overcoming. Bbehold the excruciating persistence of my will-power!

[views above may not reflect those of previous sponsors]

6
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 19, 2017, 10:42:10 pm »
The problem then is that the most common ironic stance has become too clever by half, neglecting how irony is itself grounded in a form of concern that takes issue with the importance of what people care about.  The shortcut from irony to abject nihilistic pretense is pathetic, I agree.  Like Witgenstein said of logic, irony (not concern!) is a ladder that can be discarded after use, or something like that.

7
Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: March 19, 2017, 09:46:23 pm »

Quote
I think the way out of the chain is Agency

Was thinking about this in the context of
Quote
Self-Remembering

The self that I am most given to remember is actually very much informed by a predetermined chain of events.  It would be a fools errand to try and extricate self from that chain if the self so understood was determined primarily by that sequence of events.  Even thinking about the self being so determined does not necessarily enjoy the status of being thereby removed from said chain.  The attempt to escape samsara is samsara.

It reminds me of that parable of how we are sometimes given to descend into a dark underworld.  There is the promise of being able to return, on one condition, that we should not consume or attempt to substantiate ourselves with anything that is "there".  Behind our thought-patterns, hidden from the dream yet always present, there is something that belongs to us absolutely.

And now, a message from our sponsor:
Soul not right?  No more mojo already?

If anyone's having trouble with this, I can help, for a cost close to nothing, I guarantee it.
   

8
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 17, 2017, 07:22:26 pm »
There's that.  And I can tell I'm skirting around registering the codetermination of irony/sincerity.  And then I have like this pet peeve or bone to pick about being "hoisted by one's own petard." The levity of irony can also be used to decouple people from direct connection with the object of concern.  People actually competing with each other about who cares less. Dangerous territory.  And to end with another mismatched idiom, re: being hoisted, "if they can lift you, they can move you". 
[Author regrets nothing about above word-salad]

9
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 16, 2017, 07:21:06 pm »
Quote
while delusional posuers may be annoying they can hardly be considered a real threat.

Until they hit a critical mass that enables actualization of the virtual and it's fusion with the real.  Sincere pretention can actually cause quite a bit of collateral damage. What I find terribly interesting is that there seem to be different levels of play.  On the lower, delusional fronts are engaged/harnessed in polarizing and self perpetuating conflict.  In this engagement, there is a total leveling-down and normalization of the combative stance.  Essentially you have an army of useful idiots that can be dispatched in service of any horizontal campaign for which they are given a position of fitting narrative agency.  The hero's quest for dummies.  I'm thinking of grown baby-men, shirtless fascists, chugging gallons of milk in protest, defiance and un-ironic misunderstanding of what is actually significant in terms of genetic selectivity.  On the other, and here comes my own sincere naiveté, I would like to believe that someone else also thinks this makes the spectacle of pretension flagrantly untenable.  When instead this cognitive dissonance goes to fuel the "kayfabe" of it all, then I think delusionals can pose a real threat.  I'm sure I'm prolly preaching to the choir.

10
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 16, 2017, 10:11:57 am »
Daahm.   Mea culpa.  I offer this indulgence,
Quote
One Small Step for Wishman
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=eq3nhSQ30HI

11
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 15, 2017, 09:43:44 pm »
Quote
I will close with a link to MACINTOSH PLUS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE

My puter barely still gets on the Internet, so it might have been me breaking down, I'm not sure, but is the music supposed to stop abruptly at 5:05 right after he sings "time's running out"?

12
Me too, it's not nearly hot enough for me to justify substituting beer for water.

14
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 12, 2017, 06:27:52 am »
Not sure what definition of "strife" you used to generate that banal pile of douchebaggery, but the one I generally use is the one that has the same etymological root as "strive", giving it connotations of working toward something of value.

Same. The very name of Eris has this Greek connotation. The Romans renaming her Discordia "Heartless(bad-hearted) Goddess" seems to me a reflection of how they saw the "gods" and the place of humanity in things. Strife is conflict, sure, but not pointless conflict without direction or merely a thumb pressing you into "your proper place".

Of course to say one culture had a better version of a deity than another approaches comic-fanboy levels of pointlessness.

I'm rusty on the Roman misappropriation, though it seems there's room for a connection between heart, remembrance and vengenfulness.  Echoes of the less corporeal "misericordia" also play counterpoint.

15
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 12, 2017, 06:03:38 am »
Not sure what definition of "strife" you used to generate that banal pile of douchebaggery, but the one I generally use is the one that has the same etymological root as "strive", giving it connotations of working toward something of value.
:lulz:
I get the strive thing, only that the etymology conflicts with common usage of the English word /strife/. I'm all for root meanings, just not for pointless conflict.  For example, "working toward something of value", I like, given that the value I'd be working for would also lend significance to the present act.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 145