everyone is perfect already. that's the secret.
everything is what you make of it, and wonderful. people are suffering, but they don't have to. the things you do only have meaning as far as other people are concerned. in the end though, no dice.
why think about anything other than what it feels like to kiss someone for the first time? to wake up with the sun shining on your face? to pee after you've had to for a long long time? it's all we are, and it's wonderful. our illusions hold us back, but if you recognize them as illusions, it doesn't matter. we aren't ever conscious.
i plan to work for what i perceive as the embetterment of my life. my idea of what my life is changes, but i know others are involved, and i know that there is nothing special about me other than that i'm always following myself around. i know i fall into traps a lot, having to do with how i have been taught to do things, say things. sometimes these things hurt others. i wish they didn't, but right now there's nothing i can do about that. and even if there is, i'm not doing it, which is the same thing.
there is no choice. you can only watch what's on. there's never anything good on, but sometimes there is. remember what it's like to turn on the tv and realize that what happens to be on is just what you wanted to be on, but didn't know it? well, another person just turned on the tv, too, and they couldn't bear to watch what you'd love to. maybe there's nothing on tv they want to watch. oh well.
even the worst things aren't bad. if someone wanted to torture me for the rest of my life, i would let them. i'm not going to go looking for them, but if someone barged in with a gimp suit i would go with them. except that i don't think anyone's better of for murder, or rape. it really doesn't matter. at the end of the day, there you are, thinking about what you've done, and every feeling is worth the same. there are regrets and hopes for all of us, and even though we experiene different things, we're the same. it's sad, in a way, that people are sad. but in another way, it doesn't matter, because it's all just existence anyway. life is not sacred, love is not special. it just feels that way because we are what we are. we can't help that, and we should embrace it, but then again, it's possible to be other things. this is evidenced by the fact that there are other things. a lot of other things. the horsehead nebula doesn't give a rat's ass about me, and that's okay, because neither do i, and that's okay, too. because of to whom i was born, my life has a certain starting place and ending place. i have no more or less choice than anyone else. because it's not just that i have a different perspective than other people: i live in a different world. what's beautiful with when, for a limited amount of time, my world intersects with another person's. but even if that never happened, it would be beautiful that my world ever existed at all.
you've just got to be ready to die. if you're ready to die, no one can do anything to you. the kingdom of god is at hand. it doesn't matter if you're a bad public speaker, if there's nothing you feel is special about you. i feel the same way. we all just do what we have to, and for me, right now, that's typing this. and, in a moment, it'll be hitting "publish post" and then going back to what i was doing, which is watching men in black and waiting until three am so i can text my girlfriend who lives in california "i'll see you tomorrow! :)" because on monday i'm flying out to see her, and i want to wait until it's true for her, too. that's all there is for me, right now. tomorrow there will be other things, and maybe i'll even get mad tomorrow. but then i'll think about what i'm writing and have been writing now, and i'll know: there is no truth. and hey, that's a paradox. and that's okay, because there's no reason why it shouldn't be. everything's a paradox. and that's okay. why expect meaning? or happiness? or that anyone will ever read this?
Everything is meaningless (even this sentence).
Right now I am hitting keys on a keyboard, creating characters on the screen that make up the words that you read individually which, in turn, create phrases, clauses, and sentences and "meaning" in your mind. But what if my definitions of all those words are different than yours? and I just told you to go fuck your grandmothers corpse in the eye socket? Or, if you are female, be fucked in the eye-socket after your death by your grandson? This is trust: I didn't mean that, and you knew that. So in an age where people talk about not trusting anyone, we trust each other more than ever, in terms of the flow of information. This is horrible because you shouldn't trust anyone. But that's beside the point because it doesn't matter. In fact, even my point doesn't matter. If you get anything out of this message, it's that you didn't get anything out of this message.
Right now I am hitting keys on a keyboard, creating characters on the screen that make up the words that you read individually which, in turn, create phrases, clauses, and sentences and "meaning" in your mind. But what if my definitions of all those words are different than yours? and I just told you to go fuck your grandmothers corpse in the eye socket? Or, if you are female, be fucked in the eye-socket after your death by your grandson? This is trust: I didn't mean that, and you knew that. So in an age where people talk about not trusting anyone, we trust each other more than ever, in terms of the flow of information. This is horrible because you shouldn't trust anyone. But that's beside the point because it doesn't matter. In fact, even my point doesn't matter. If you get anything out of this message, it's that you didn't get anything out of this message.
Humans undergo evolution in thought that isn't present in other animals. This is what culture is: an animal adaptation that allows for larger groups.
But we've forgotten that culture has a purpose larger than any individual, so we become obsessed with making it serve our interests. This detaches culture from history. It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. We been wanking for thousands of years.
Truth? That shit doesn't exist. Everyone who's ever thought about it have been wasting a lot of time. You can't access reality, you can only make a map that's an approximation.
But we've forgotten that culture has a purpose larger than any individual, so we become obsessed with making it serve our interests. This detaches culture from history. It's like the difference between sex and masturbation. We been wanking for thousands of years.
Truth? That shit doesn't exist. Everyone who's ever thought about it have been wasting a lot of time. You can't access reality, you can only make a map that's an approximation.
Having fun is really really important. Taking shit seriously is how war happens. Nothing matters. Revel in meaninglessness. People being mean for no reason is the only thing wrong with the world. Oh, and people not knowing anything.
So:
1. Know that you know nothing.
2. Have as much fun as possible.
Everything's ridiculous.
So:
1. Know that you know nothing.
2. Have as much fun as possible.
Everything's ridiculous.
Interest is fucking bullshit, and I think it might be the original sin.
When I lend someone money, I don't charge fucking interest when they pay me back. Know why? It's a dick move, that's why. Having that be the norm in banking makes the atmosphere automatically one of non-friendship. Why would anyone ever choose money over friendship? Banks fucking suck and every banker should be shot. As it is, that's unlikely.
I think interest was originally willingly given. Sometimes when I lend money I think about paying back more than I took, as a gesture of gratitude. So I think proto-bankers took advantage of the fact that people appreciate other people helping them out, and made it mandatory to pay interest so that they could turn the whole world into a pyramid scheme, serving themselves. It's fucked up nonsense, and at the same time it's totally laughable. We're all gonna be dirt in the end, morons. Take all the fucking money, I don't give a shit. Shoot me, torture me, make me work for you for forty years. I don't give a shit. Life is meaningless. And so are you. When I see idiots in suits I want to laugh, but it's such a shame that they would never understand how ridiculous they are, and how much they deserve to be laughed at.
Men fear being laughed at. Everything they do is to avoid it. Everything. Even Hitler was afraid of it, and he was successful. Nobody fuckin' laughs about the holocaust. Why not? That was a fucking ridiculous idea! And yeah, people died, but they were going to die anyway, and all it led to was a bunch of dead Germans and dead Hitler, too. We can't all take people seriously just because they take themselves seriously. That's what power is. Once you've learned to laugh with a gun barrel in your face, you'll know what freedom is.
Gandhi said some shit like "they can hurt me until they die, and then they can have my corpse." ladies and gentlemen and Queers, this man got it. It doesn't matter when you die; it doesn't matter whom you love; it doesn't matter who your mom is. You caring about these things is what lets others exploit you. This is the dreamworld you live in. This is all the proxies of maleness that you're not allowed to laugh at for no reason. Who the fuck is barack obama? Who the fuck is the head of the cia? This are ridiculous morons, and the fact that we take what they say seriously is the travesty. It does not matter what they say; it all means the same thing: take me seriously! When obama gets a standing ovation: fuck him, he's a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything and is a puppet for more mysterious forces.
There is nobody in control. Nobody is making sure things don't fall apart. Think about your dad. Someone like him, probably dumber than him, is in every major position of power in the world. These are not respobsible men, these are fucking fools. children. And we let them rule us. What reality are we living in? Certainly not ours. I don't give a fuck about unemployment, or the war in iraq or same-sex marriage. None of this shit matters.
When I lend someone money, I don't charge fucking interest when they pay me back. Know why? It's a dick move, that's why. Having that be the norm in banking makes the atmosphere automatically one of non-friendship. Why would anyone ever choose money over friendship? Banks fucking suck and every banker should be shot. As it is, that's unlikely.
I think interest was originally willingly given. Sometimes when I lend money I think about paying back more than I took, as a gesture of gratitude. So I think proto-bankers took advantage of the fact that people appreciate other people helping them out, and made it mandatory to pay interest so that they could turn the whole world into a pyramid scheme, serving themselves. It's fucked up nonsense, and at the same time it's totally laughable. We're all gonna be dirt in the end, morons. Take all the fucking money, I don't give a shit. Shoot me, torture me, make me work for you for forty years. I don't give a shit. Life is meaningless. And so are you. When I see idiots in suits I want to laugh, but it's such a shame that they would never understand how ridiculous they are, and how much they deserve to be laughed at.
Men fear being laughed at. Everything they do is to avoid it. Everything. Even Hitler was afraid of it, and he was successful. Nobody fuckin' laughs about the holocaust. Why not? That was a fucking ridiculous idea! And yeah, people died, but they were going to die anyway, and all it led to was a bunch of dead Germans and dead Hitler, too. We can't all take people seriously just because they take themselves seriously. That's what power is. Once you've learned to laugh with a gun barrel in your face, you'll know what freedom is.
Gandhi said some shit like "they can hurt me until they die, and then they can have my corpse." ladies and gentlemen and Queers, this man got it. It doesn't matter when you die; it doesn't matter whom you love; it doesn't matter who your mom is. You caring about these things is what lets others exploit you. This is the dreamworld you live in. This is all the proxies of maleness that you're not allowed to laugh at for no reason. Who the fuck is barack obama? Who the fuck is the head of the cia? This are ridiculous morons, and the fact that we take what they say seriously is the travesty. It does not matter what they say; it all means the same thing: take me seriously! When obama gets a standing ovation: fuck him, he's a fucking moron who knows nothing about anything and is a puppet for more mysterious forces.
There is nobody in control. Nobody is making sure things don't fall apart. Think about your dad. Someone like him, probably dumber than him, is in every major position of power in the world. These are not respobsible men, these are fucking fools. children. And we let them rule us. What reality are we living in? Certainly not ours. I don't give a fuck about unemployment, or the war in iraq or same-sex marriage. None of this shit matters.
There's a lot of information out there. This makes it impossible to be rational. (Dialectic)
A lot of the time, we accept what authorities tell us, because we figure we would say the same thing in their place, or we trust that they know what they're talking about. So, in effect, we allow the media to do thinking for us. Problem is, we forget how to think dialectically, although we started out doing so. Because we want to have as much information as possible, in order to be able to make the best possible decision, but all too often what we're deciding is which information to access next. We're preparing for a choice we're never going to make. And so the dialectic is turned against itself.
The good part, though, is that every single fucking person is going to be fucking dead in the future, and the universe will be clear of the ridiculous blot we're currently imposing on it. (WE SUCK)
A lot of the time, we accept what authorities tell us, because we figure we would say the same thing in their place, or we trust that they know what they're talking about. So, in effect, we allow the media to do thinking for us. Problem is, we forget how to think dialectically, although we started out doing so. Because we want to have as much information as possible, in order to be able to make the best possible decision, but all too often what we're deciding is which information to access next. We're preparing for a choice we're never going to make. And so the dialectic is turned against itself.
The good part, though, is that every single fucking person is going to be fucking dead in the future, and the universe will be clear of the ridiculous blot we're currently imposing on it. (WE SUCK)
The State of Sports, by a Casual Sports Fan.
I agree with Chuck Klosterman when he says that the most important part of liking sports is hating sports. The general respect for sports in society reflects the wish to be perceived as athletic, and it is this crucial break between reality and myth that I think tells us a lot about what our myths are, as a people of these United States. As I believe there exists a degree of consciousness in each casual sports fan, and hopefully, the capacity to understand in those unversed in sports), I'm going to try and write so anyone understands.
My first example is the sport of basketball, played in the National Basketball Association (NBA) between five-man teams.
In the NBA, the perception is that players who score many points by shooting the ball through the basket whether from a two-point range, a three-point range, and a one-point "free throw" that occurs when a referee deems a foul has been committed against a player while that player was in the process of attempting to score one of the aforementioned two shots. In fact, many of the players who were stars on very successful franchises, like Bill Russel with the Boston Celtics teams in the 60s, Kareem Abdul-Jabbarr with 1980s Los Angeles Lakers teams and Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls franchise in the 1990s. These are players who are the elite players because they win the most games, and they take home the most trophies.
Then comes a two-pronged deception: sports don't actually measure athletic ability. They are, fundamentally, a show of athletic ability, and therefore the perception is more important than the reality. When a team wins a championship, it can reasonably say that it is a great team, but all the other teams have to jockey for position in other ways, always only definitively submissive to the most recent champion, and to a team that had recently beaten them. It is the players who are not elite who score many points that the system unfairly favors. The importance of efficiency in scoring, and seemingly auxileury skills like rebounding and turnover aversion is mightily undervalued by the people who watch sports, and therefore by the corporations that pay the players. Points! Points! Points! in the media. Points! Points! Points! in the mind.
So a player's incentive is to become a good scorer, whether it helps the team (and the rest of its players) succeed or not (rising tide etc.). Whether that mean withholding practice techniques or other "tips of the trade" to his less successful teammates, or adopting any consideration of them whatsoever, he attempts to create the perception that he is a good player, because as long as it is perceived by customers that certain players are better, they will be treated as such by the owners. Sports therefore become the competition of attempting to be perceived as althetic.
This is the obligatory "persona adoptoion." All legendary sports stars have "personas," created and supported by the press, allegedly revealing their inner feelings about being a legendary sports star. It's like he's Jesus all of a sudden and has got all these disciples to "bring tha word" to the folks back home about how they, too, can advance in this pyramid scheme, and what it's like and how nice it is to be at the top. Lesser players have personas, too, and the medicore scorers wind up being like those really loud small dogs. When players don't win, they lack credibility and don't get paid as much. Players who are lucky early in their careers, the rookies-of-the-year and early peakers, gain credibility at that time that they often turn into respect over their whole career, earning more later on, when they had tanked, than they deserved. Tracy MacGrady, Allen Iverson. At the end of the day, though, all players are the same, only at different levels of the hierarchy demanded by the game's rules.
"Catch that quote from Canada's foremost free agent-to-be? "I haven't been this encouraged in a while," Bosh said. And that was before Hedo's clutch drive and FTs pulled out a one-point win over the Lakers. " - ESPN.com
(http://espn.com/nba/powerrankings?year=2010&week=13)Okay, let's do this line by line, word by word. "Catch that quote?" It's like this message just something you're supposed to have heard already just because it historically happened and they have been talking about it. It's a judgment, saying "if you didn't know this already, you're not following sports well enough. Around a competition to be perceived as having athletic ability revolves a competition to be see as connected to the world of manliest men. Instead of really coming from a love of sport that creates an emotional need to follow them, however, it's about the perception of being in tune with that data stream, and emotionally connected to it, to themselves and also to others. This in an age where the overwhelming majority of the viewers of sports are not in the stadiums they're held at, so what they're watching is a group of people watching a game the way people used to watch games.
"from Canada's formost free agent-to-be?"
This tells the casual basketball fan that this message refers to a player who plays for the Toronto Raptors, the only National Basketball Association (NBA) team in Canada. Casual sports fans also know that the only other Canadian franchise they care about at all is the Toronto Blue Jays, especially because they play in the same division of teams as the New York Yankees, a very popular franchise, in Major League Baseball (MLB). The National Football League (NFL) has no canadian franchises, and indeed very few foreign players at all. Hmm...
Part of the reason that the NFL is so popular in the United States is that most of its employees are United States citizens. Citizens are seen as being worth at least respect, at worst fear, and at best, admiration. The Central- and South American and European players who have begun to become more important in Baseball, and Basketball, respectively. Hockey has always had many Candian players, but hockey is not a respected sport among casual- or team specific sports fans, whom I assert make up the vast majority of sports fans. I mean, if you go to Hockey games, you see your team's guy fight the other team's guy. You get into it, it's barbaric. And that leads to team-specificty. The casual sports fan, however, never goes to Hockey games, so they never think about the existence of all the Canadian (or any other, really, except Wayne Gretzky) hockey players. So, by clinging to Football, Americans can express nationalism.
The central deception of sports is that they mean anything. Any critically minded person could tell you that sports are part of the entertainment sector of the economy, the fantasy-realm. Sports are exposed as one of the myths of our time, the practical polytheism demanded by consumption of entertainment. This is the realm of the celebrity-god, the pinnacle of success as an entertainer, presenter, forger of mythical identity. At the same time, the casually critically-minded casual sports fan will also consider that sports are meaningless, and that this individual is very lucky to be in his very wealthy position (as luck and wealth are directly correlated). The phrase "free agent-to-be" fuses references to the player's status as a "free agent" and the phrase "bride-to-be" and similar phrases. The player being designated a "free agent" refers to the fact that this player's contract with his current team will expire at the end of the season. Players sign with a team for a set amount of seasons, the last of which becomes the player's "free agent" season. The "bride-to-be" reference connects the player's situation to that of the mythical young girl, finally coming into the world and taking her place as a lovely wife, living nowhere but in our heads. So banal is too the player's situation, part of a cycle of spectacle's that keep sports interesting. If ever game were the same, people wouldn't watch.
This day's supreme court ruling... is the action of one class against another.
Populations, or discernible groups of people, are people who have accepted a common adaptation of consciousness. The evolutionary fights takes to the stage of ideas. Today's decision is the defense of one idea, one consciousness, that is currently fighting for control of the human race. For we are unified after separate evolution. Our history has been forgotten, but we live it out in all our interactions. We are the force of the dialectic always, even though we do not realize it. And gambles that were taken thousands of years ago still haunt us, having succeeded longer than those who came up with their concept, so that no authority can be cited or referred to for advice. And so a new person takes the idea up, or his interpretation thereof, and presents himself as the real truth. (Have you ever heard someone say capitalism is "just the way people are."? Isn't it grotesquely hilarious that people believe that??)
So now the consciousness of corporations (collectives driven by an elite, theses, commodities) is being given the same weight as the consciousness of human beings. And in this way the dissolution of human beings' qualitatively separate consciousness from the non-living has now been advanced even further. These are the present lines of the spectacle's advance. And I won't be the first to wonder, or the last: how did it come to this?
Populations, or discernible groups of people, are people who have accepted a common adaptation of consciousness. The evolutionary fights takes to the stage of ideas. Today's decision is the defense of one idea, one consciousness, that is currently fighting for control of the human race. For we are unified after separate evolution. Our history has been forgotten, but we live it out in all our interactions. We are the force of the dialectic always, even though we do not realize it. And gambles that were taken thousands of years ago still haunt us, having succeeded longer than those who came up with their concept, so that no authority can be cited or referred to for advice. And so a new person takes the idea up, or his interpretation thereof, and presents himself as the real truth. (Have you ever heard someone say capitalism is "just the way people are."? Isn't it grotesquely hilarious that people believe that??)
So now the consciousness of corporations (collectives driven by an elite, theses, commodities) is being given the same weight as the consciousness of human beings. And in this way the dissolution of human beings' qualitatively separate consciousness from the non-living has now been advanced even further. These are the present lines of the spectacle's advance. And I won't be the first to wonder, or the last: how did it come to this?
Everyone is perfectly suited to their perceived environment. Of course, since no organism is perfectly suited for its environment (lives forever), any perception is false. So right now there is no real consciousness.
What we do when we're no having sex/giving birth is important, too, of course. It's not the case that sexual reproduction is the only important thing in the world. Perhaps it is the most important, but other disciplines exist outside of it qualitatively and progress quantitatively independently.
What we do when we're no having sex/giving birth is important, too, of course. It's not the case that sexual reproduction is the only important thing in the world. Perhaps it is the most important, but other disciplines exist outside of it qualitatively and progress quantitatively independently.
We are animals. Everything we do is part of the process of evolution.
We believe that our culture is more real than an expression of animalism, but it isn't. It's the map of the world, on a scale of 1:1, that's been pulled over our eyes.
When does human history start? That is, distinctly human history? Well, the last ancestor humans shared with another still-present species was shared with chimpanzees and bonobo, and this was about 5 to 7 million years ago! So think about our point in history being part of not only the history of "culture," which is only several thousand years old, but part of all the risks we've taken as a species to better advance our chances of survival. Even in species that don't diverge, evolution is always occurring- this is the principle education works on, the education of ideas. Or consider what we call the "races" of humans. Clearly there are differences between groups that evolved in isolation. This dialectic process is present not only in groups of populations, however; it is the essence of every individual. Every individual seeks the optimal chances for its procreation, treating its genetic material like a vessel it is transporting. Some people can be said to obviously have interests contrary to this- namely, those who do not want to have children. But in such cases, maybe the individual has another group that it prefers and dedicates its time to protecting, or that individual could just be seen as a failure of its parents. Each person's perspective is worth no more than anyone else's, because they're all just methods of survival, and since they're both clearly alive, they've worked so far and are thus scientifically equally valid. Bickering about beliefs is basically just arguing about whether the other's ideas will lead to extinction in the end. All life strives away from death but is simultaneously perpetually conscious of it. Life is thesis, death anti-thesis. Theses present themselves as the only truth. Culture allows ideas to be passed on from generation to generation despite the deaths of the people who originally have them. Anyway, as these improve, antitheses become less frequent (longer lifespans), until some ideal is reached where there are no more contradictions. Life strives to become one immortal organism that comprises the whole universe. Each of us is a failure for life, because we die. But life, what we all carry within the vessel of our bodies, uses us to advance itself anyway, through our interactions with others. Just as a movement can go forward despite the death of one of its members, so can we individually push others closer to the ideal lifeform despite thehopelessness of our ever attaining it.
We see the dialectic process at work that is part not only of life, in the form of evolution, but also in the non-living (technology, communication), as witnessed by the living.
If an animal species dies out, do we say it was its fault? No. We realize that for animals, the environment is very sensitive, and if, say, an oil spill wipes out an animal's habitat, there was nothing the animal could have done (or reasonably have been expected to do) to prevent it's fate. The invasive force is seen as negative here.
Between humans, populations that don't survive are labeled inferior because the worth of its species is inherently how well it survives. So that what is can be called what should be, because there is something that makes things that are make sense, that justify what is. Values. Culture. Common worldview. Modes of consciousness.
Clearly there is animosity among humans. This occurs between parties that originated from a common ancestor and believe the other made a mistake in leaving the clan. Each of them having taken risks in diverging, the one group can't imagine risking what the other risked, and the other can't imagine not having made a change. The funny thing is both can see things from both perspectives. It is this fundamental separation from one's place in the process of evolution, of the dialectic, that I believe should be called "false consciousness."
We believe that our culture is more real than an expression of animalism, but it isn't. It's the map of the world, on a scale of 1:1, that's been pulled over our eyes.
When does human history start? That is, distinctly human history? Well, the last ancestor humans shared with another still-present species was shared with chimpanzees and bonobo, and this was about 5 to 7 million years ago! So think about our point in history being part of not only the history of "culture," which is only several thousand years old, but part of all the risks we've taken as a species to better advance our chances of survival. Even in species that don't diverge, evolution is always occurring- this is the principle education works on, the education of ideas. Or consider what we call the "races" of humans. Clearly there are differences between groups that evolved in isolation. This dialectic process is present not only in groups of populations, however; it is the essence of every individual. Every individual seeks the optimal chances for its procreation, treating its genetic material like a vessel it is transporting. Some people can be said to obviously have interests contrary to this- namely, those who do not want to have children. But in such cases, maybe the individual has another group that it prefers and dedicates its time to protecting, or that individual could just be seen as a failure of its parents. Each person's perspective is worth no more than anyone else's, because they're all just methods of survival, and since they're both clearly alive, they've worked so far and are thus scientifically equally valid. Bickering about beliefs is basically just arguing about whether the other's ideas will lead to extinction in the end. All life strives away from death but is simultaneously perpetually conscious of it. Life is thesis, death anti-thesis. Theses present themselves as the only truth. Culture allows ideas to be passed on from generation to generation despite the deaths of the people who originally have them. Anyway, as these improve, antitheses become less frequent (longer lifespans), until some ideal is reached where there are no more contradictions. Life strives to become one immortal organism that comprises the whole universe. Each of us is a failure for life, because we die. But life, what we all carry within the vessel of our bodies, uses us to advance itself anyway, through our interactions with others. Just as a movement can go forward despite the death of one of its members, so can we individually push others closer to the ideal lifeform despite thehopelessness of our ever attaining it.
We see the dialectic process at work that is part not only of life, in the form of evolution, but also in the non-living (technology, communication), as witnessed by the living.
If an animal species dies out, do we say it was its fault? No. We realize that for animals, the environment is very sensitive, and if, say, an oil spill wipes out an animal's habitat, there was nothing the animal could have done (or reasonably have been expected to do) to prevent it's fate. The invasive force is seen as negative here.
Between humans, populations that don't survive are labeled inferior because the worth of its species is inherently how well it survives. So that what is can be called what should be, because there is something that makes things that are make sense, that justify what is. Values. Culture. Common worldview. Modes of consciousness.
Clearly there is animosity among humans. This occurs between parties that originated from a common ancestor and believe the other made a mistake in leaving the clan. Each of them having taken risks in diverging, the one group can't imagine risking what the other risked, and the other can't imagine not having made a change. The funny thing is both can see things from both perspectives. It is this fundamental separation from one's place in the process of evolution, of the dialectic, that I believe should be called "false consciousness."
The beginning
It's time to bring the old girl back. Here comes the truth:
Context: "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on Society of the Spectacle" by Guy DeBord.
I. The Spectacle is the thinking we would do, if we were able. The way we accept information is if we believe that, given the right starting point, we would have concluded the same information. In a way, this already speaks to the division of labor, as people simply forget about certain aspects of our society (like the garbage) even as they play their role in it. The Spectacle gives us information we are afraid of missing, because we are afraid of falling behind its ever advancing flow. In this way, the dialectic thinker is turned against himself: he is always searching for new antitheses to his perspective, so that he may continue to evolve as a thinker. However, due to the monopoly of information the Spectacle possesses, he is unable to compare his thoughts to any information that is not spread through commercialized media, necessarily limiting his perspective. The fact that it becomes an economic imperative to process and understand certain information speaks to modern societies total domination over dialectic thinkers in particular and thought in general.
II. Our perception of the world is the shadow of our ideology. When you look at the sun, its image is burned into your retina. Or something. Regardless, when you look away, you see the inverse of the sun's light: it is blue, and is laid over whatever else you are looking at. The Spectacle is the radiant sun of ideology, which we cannot behold in its entirety because it is so overwhelming, and that even in short exposures leads to similar imprinting of its visage in our modes of perception. In this way, the real world seems to us to be in that blue shadow of materialized ideology. Instead of modeling our brains on our perceptions of the outside world, we are modeling the world based on the construction of our brains, as necessitated by the economy. This is the principle cause of the commodification of the world and the worldification of the commodity.
Context: "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on Society of the Spectacle" by Guy DeBord.
I. The Spectacle is the thinking we would do, if we were able. The way we accept information is if we believe that, given the right starting point, we would have concluded the same information. In a way, this already speaks to the division of labor, as people simply forget about certain aspects of our society (like the garbage) even as they play their role in it. The Spectacle gives us information we are afraid of missing, because we are afraid of falling behind its ever advancing flow. In this way, the dialectic thinker is turned against himself: he is always searching for new antitheses to his perspective, so that he may continue to evolve as a thinker. However, due to the monopoly of information the Spectacle possesses, he is unable to compare his thoughts to any information that is not spread through commercialized media, necessarily limiting his perspective. The fact that it becomes an economic imperative to process and understand certain information speaks to modern societies total domination over dialectic thinkers in particular and thought in general.
II. Our perception of the world is the shadow of our ideology. When you look at the sun, its image is burned into your retina. Or something. Regardless, when you look away, you see the inverse of the sun's light: it is blue, and is laid over whatever else you are looking at. The Spectacle is the radiant sun of ideology, which we cannot behold in its entirety because it is so overwhelming, and that even in short exposures leads to similar imprinting of its visage in our modes of perception. In this way, the real world seems to us to be in that blue shadow of materialized ideology. Instead of modeling our brains on our perceptions of the outside world, we are modeling the world based on the construction of our brains, as necessitated by the economy. This is the principle cause of the commodification of the world and the worldification of the commodity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)