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] 5 6 7 ... 148
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]

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 16, 2017, 07:21:06 pm »
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.

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,
One Small Step for Wishman

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 15, 2017, 09:43:44 pm »
I will close with a link to MACINTOSH PLUS -

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"?

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

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.

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.
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.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 12, 2017, 03:46:23 am »
Strife serves the individual because it represents the inverted impression of work being done.  Without it's character of resistance, there would not b anything against which to cast our efforts:  purchase-less work, or, action without traction.  If this seems backwards, that's because it is, therefore, strife.

I can engage the world meaningfully without saying that it only runs on friction, noise and histrionics.   It's not work for the sake of distraction that I want.  It's a sense of relevant engagement that I'm looking for.

An image that comes to mind is Jean Claude van Dam, to illustrate what is wrong with strife.  He actually had very fluid kinetics from his dance training.  Putting that to work for martial-arts flix though meant that he was going to have to appear tougher than a ballerina.  So, to appease the gods of kayfabe, he's always flexing and holding all this tension to make him seem, well, more formidable.  This then informs the nether regions of what we think a confrontational stance looks like.  In actuality however, all that flexing is a waste of energy and motility that only serves the spectacle of combat at the expense of actually providing a lasting fighting strategy.

I'm so Discordian that I regect the limitations of strife, favoring a Daoist interpretation of it instead.  Otherwise it's just cognitive dissonance for the sake of cognitive dissonance.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 10, 2017, 11:47:04 pm »

Let me invoke Camus [...]
[H]is conclusion is that even if the universe is bereft of inherent meaning, meaning can be created.

Camus said: let's not make our lives about the emptiness. Let's fill it with something worth living for.

I think maybe that's the guts of what we're talking about

I also enjoyed M.M. Ponty's articulation of meaning-giving as having both centrifugal and centripetal polarities.  Problem there is how to understand the relevance-relation of meaningful differences.  Usually instantiated as subject/object, self/world, individual/society; they are always and only understood in the shadow of empty things.  Then also my meaning-giving becomes empty, a simulation/simulacra.  So the question is, how do things go from zero to one?

I don't go camping nearly as often as I should, a fact evinced on my last trip by the food and clothing I thought would be adequate.  Cold and hunger not registering, I rose to look at the moon a tad too quickly and had the strangest head-rush.  Practically fainting (probably the off oranges) I suddenly found myself in a Berkeleyesque staged-version of the campsite.  Similar yet entirely different, it was like the space had been Disneyfied to look like the ride Pirates of the Caribbean.  Anyhow, that was also all I had.

What I mean is that I knew something was different, but I had nothing upon which to base that comparison.  I was in some kind of a fugue state, like a short circuit, with no determinate access to my particular sense of self.  It was like I had jumped into a different time-line, or slipped into a crack between worlds (words...). Capacity to clearly identify things and people substituted with fuzzy facades.  Point being, even as the world slipped away, the past vaporized, self dismantled, there was not also a dissolution of meaning or importance.  To the contrary, the "realness" of that state was entirely inescapable, the moment was unpostponable.

So I suppose what I'm getting at is that just because we give something meaning, which may or not be inherent, this does not make the sense of meaning any less relevant.  It is an entirely too permissive universe that humbly calls for us to accept that it provides the ground of possibility for our interrelation with it to be meaningfully nurtured, or not.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 10, 2017, 06:54:27 am »
The thing is that I find the (profound) implications of irony ecstatically liberating.  Pure nihilism is that I believe sincerely in the complete emptiness of all things, which outstrips me with wet, slippery and entirely overflowing nothingness.  Yes, irony is the captain of my ship, I say, tripping over my fins.

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony (& The New Sincerity)
« on: March 09, 2017, 11:08:14 pm »
Something about how irony used to be, is that it would creep up on me.  Like some kind of unassuming ju-jitsu master that you would pretend to brush off, only to find that her legs are firmly wrapped around your neck, and you're going down.  I'm thinking Nabokov.  It's a calculated sequence of demolitions by shaped charges.  Instead now, with the chans, it's like irony just for irony's sake (look:  irony! ()).  It's a reactive bar-brawl where the principal of subversion stops at the quasi literal "up-endinding" of whatever (as long as it's not me...). Boring, pointless. The recognition of irony in itself is not a point of self-determination that can serve personal identity.  That last point seems lost on most who seek refuge in it, and then they choke.  slippery subject, irony is.

(would like to post better, more considerate responses, but time constraints only permit this.  Still very much enjoying the little time I can spend in here)

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Post-Irony
« on: March 08, 2017, 10:52:22 pm »
I'm jumping in here a little un-prepared, but who cares.  Fucking irony, yeah, I agree with DFW.  I also think his movement toward "new sincerity" struck me as being somewhat inauthentic and rehabilitated.  This is probably the result of my own different projections on the nature of "recovery" interfering with themselves.  This is not to detract from my rejection of irony, rather to indicate the insidious way that it infects us with its weakness. 

If it does serve as a tool for deconstruction, strong enough to dismantle even Itself, then what the fuck is it's business bolstering ego's and shielding fragments of self?  If irony were presented with it's own groundlessness, it would run off like a hysterical child screaming into the abyss.

If irony does indicate an absence, at least it can be full of a "positive-indeterminate"?

Now off to read what all this new sincerity clap-trap is about :lulz:

Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: February 25, 2017, 03:14:34 am »
Nothing fantastic to report.  I was looking forward to Foggs Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, reading it however failed to provide traction.  Maybe cause not fully committed to read (skimming), or the fact that it was written in '02 makes approach feel dated w.r.t. current applications of said technology.  Blah.

Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: February 23, 2017, 09:00:42 pm »
Two screenwriters working on different productions meet in a preliminary hearing for a lawsuit, after investors at a test screening noticed that the dialogue in both films was identical (and that, upon looking, the shooting scripts were also identical). The lawsuit was settled out of court & neither film ever got theatrical release or distribution as part of the deal, and the screenwriters hit it off, fell in love, and got married -- their connection cemented by the idea that they were fated to be with each other by the bond of having written identical 120 page screenplays, down to the letter. However, years later, after one of them dies, the other  (while searching through his estate) comes upon his draft -- and sees that the similarity with her own is only marginal (i.e., by that draft, they would have been 'twin movies' but not even character names are the same). Tracking down the final shooting draft, she sees that it differs significantly from both. She contacts her old boss and investigates up the chain, to find that the same esteemed script doctor was assigned to both pictures, and that it seems that he had replaced both scripts with one of his own. However, looking over various complaints, she found evidence to believe that it wasn't his own at all, and that instead he had, for years, been stockpiling good but unproduced screenplays and occasionally using them as 'rewrites' for similar films when he didn't have time to rewrite properly, and without crediting the original author -- and that this accounts for his legendary ability to perform many major rewrites simultaneously.
I like.  Borges meet PKD.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 148