Messages

16

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 13, 2013, 05:32:16 am »

One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true.

  Please, making such logical fallacies is just insincere, an "yahweh" is an "invisible entity" in the sense that it's an abstract; the State is a very real and tangible institution, with power and officials and the ability of enforcement.

Others might have heard me say this multiple times and might be sick and tired of it by now, but not you so ill repeat it: discourse =/= practice. I say this in the sense that even if you dont have a subservient mentality, and you still act subservient, the State's power remains the same.

Good luck with that "collective resistance", go and wake up the "sheep" from their "slumber".

17

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 13, 2013, 03:59:34 am »

I think the central point in the argumentation is the possibility of the "anarchist project", and if it indeed is, there are a bunch of threads that explore that already.

18

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 13, 2013, 03:54:56 am »

Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds.

My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The Machine^TM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.

First of all, States are not "projections of the mind" they are real entities, look up the Parable of the Barstool. Also, making a psychological reductionism of a socio-historical process of why States exist and were created is simply that, a reductionism.

I was going to adress the rest of the post, but its way too scattered and it replicates the problem with the first paragraph, psychological reductionism to very complex phenomena.

19

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 13, 2013, 12:54:39 am »

psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"

also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...

the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting

20

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 12, 2013, 08:37:34 pm »

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.

There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.

Theres this whole field in psychology that is denominated "groups and institutions" with its own theory and practice, and then there's also "psychoanalysis of institutions"... i mean, im trying to not be rude, but to me it just sounded like psych 101 fappery

21

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

« on: June 12, 2013, 08:06:08 pm »

im curious, have you actually read anything of psychoanalysis beyond some wikipedia article?

i personally think your analogies and comparisons are weak and superficial, do you have it in you to make something more elaborate?

22

Apple Zone / Re: We're (still) internet famous!

« on: June 12, 2013, 05:54:19 am »

http://23ae.com/2011/09/sigils/

23

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

« on: June 11, 2013, 09:55:04 am »

pretty good writing there, nice to know individuals can get worked up like that over the invisibly obvious with a tone that isnt cynism nor matter-of-fact

24

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

« on: June 11, 2013, 08:48:31 am »

Sure.

But what that says is there is a large body of people who think this sort of thing is OK.  Regardless of the actual number, it's still a really large number.

Yup. Sooner that large body is a large rotting corpse, the better. Of course the govt agenda is to make sure the docile are all that's left. Fuck those clowns. Hopefully the terrorists will frighten them all to death.

Oh, terrorism is only the justification here.  As Ian Welsh says:

If you want despotism, as elites, if you want to treat everyone badly, so you personally become more powerful and rich, then, you’ve got two problems: an internal one (revolt) and an external one: war and being outcompeted by other nations elites, who will come and take away your power, one way or the other (this isn’t always violently, though it can be.)

The solution is a transnational elite, in broad agreement on the issues, who do not believe in nationalism, and who play by the same rules and ideology. If you’re all the same, if nations are just flags, if you feel more kinship for your fellow oligarchs, well then, you’re safe.  There’s still competition, to be sure, but as a class, you’re secure.

That leaves the internal problem, of revolt.  The worse you treat people, the more you’re scared of them.  The more you clamp down.  This is really, really expensive and it breaks down over generations, causing internal rot, till you can’t get the system to do anything, no matter how many levers you push.

What is being run right now is a vast experiment to see if modern technology has fixed these problems with surveillance and oppressive states.  Is it cheap enough to go full Stasi, and with that level of surveillance can you keep control over the economy, keep the levers working, make people do what you want, and not all slack off and resist passively, by only going through the motions?

The oligarchs are betting that the technology has made that change.  With the end of serious war between primary nations (enforced by nukes, among other things), with the creation of a transnational ruling class, and with the ability to scale surveillance, it may be possible to take and keep control indefinitely, and bypass the well understood problems of oligarchy and police and surveillance states.

What book is that?

25

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

« on: June 11, 2013, 08:01:28 am »

Isn't there always a 5% margin of error anyhow? Just to be nitpicky about it being closer to 50%.

26

Apple Zone / Re: LIFECRAP

« on: June 11, 2013, 01:26:15 am »

chungis?

I use random words I make up for my own amusement. they mean nothing.

ok, just keep in mind that making up words to communicate something to another person isnt very efficient, around here we call that "pinealism" or "word salad"

27

Apple Zone / Re: LIFECRAP

« on: June 11, 2013, 01:22:20 am »

chungis?

28

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Superhero/villian Ideas

« on: June 11, 2013, 01:18:58 am »

if you want anything more than putdowns, then you should write more than two sentences for a given character, we dont read minds, nor can see the potential in your characters if you dont actually put in the effort to develop them

29

Apple Zone / Re: LIFECRAP

« on: June 11, 2013, 01:11:04 am »

dont expect others to do what you dont have the balls to do yourself, that would be the real lesson, little grasshopper

also, we in this board are pretty cynical and arent easily amused, so  no need to use the "cool discordian lingo"

also, get off my lawn 

30

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

« on: June 10, 2013, 07:43:04 am »

"interrogation" then solitary for couple of years