[!@#$%!]

what im saying i suppose is that baudrillard was perhaps great at describing culture.

but he confused language with physics.

[!@#$%!]

i had an old professor who said the postmoderns confused communication with metaphysics.

i don't believe in metaphysics.

but i do believe in entropy.

[dead_battery]

we dont want nihilism to be possible.

you have to enjoy (so you always have something)

thats why they accused him of trying to be cool.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i don't believe in metaphysics.

Sadducee!

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

we dont want nihilism to be possible.

you have to enjoy (so you always have something)

thats why they accused him of trying to be cool.

but if he decried the capitalistic shredding of values he wasn't a nihilist

i know we are often at loggerheads with this word, but to me the ultimate nihilist is the sociopath, not the boddhisattva

[dead_battery]

he said "i am a nihilist".

to me, the one who believes in values is an optimistically demented delusional fanatic who sees himself as something like a god.

a sociopath is just a person with a neurological configuration that puts him in the minority position relative to the average neurological configuration of the rest of us. therefore we interpret what he does as a divergence from our average.

if the majority were born with the sociopaths brain, it would be the minority with our brain that were treated as freaks.

now, why on earth do we all seem to think that if we dont "put" values on things we lose any kind of moral dimension? its bizarre.

-

he didnt see himself as some sort of romantic decrying the destruction of a prior state of goodness by an inhuman economic system. he simply bore witness, and wasnt fooled that the system was crushing some sort of brilliant goodness that lurked underneath it and inside of us

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

he said "i am a nihilist".

to me, the one who believes in values is an optimistically demented delusional fanatic who sees himself as a god.

he didnt see himself as some sort of romantic decrying the destruction of a prior state of goodness by an inhuman economic system.

not "believing" in "values," but "valuing"

you know what a zen monk chants every time before starting zazen?

a fucking oath to liberate all sentient beings.

ALL OF THEM.

tell me if that's not commitment.

anyway, i need to go sleep, but i hope i can read you tomorrow.

[dead_battery]

its not commitment, its just words.

[dead_battery]

what good comes out of our impetus that we all must value the right things? thats just more chaos. thats allowing the possibility we can all be manipulated the "right" way. its not necessary.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

to me, the one who believes in values is an optimistically demented delusional fanatic

 

That's possibly true!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

its not commitment, its just words.

that's true, in a way, but you realize the implications of those words, right? they're massive.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

what good comes out of our impetus that we all must value the right things? thats just more chaos. thats allowing the possibility we can all be manipulated the "right" way. its not necessary.

it's not that it's a must, it's that we all do it.

ironically enough, right here you're valuing: good (what good?), non-chaos (peace? order?), freedom (non-manipulation), and a kind of minimalist thrift (necessary vs. superfluous?).

earlier you said baudrillard is great, upper class academic marxists are shit.

etc.

i.e., you care.

and that's not really nihilism, is it?

to simply debunk stupid social constructs does not a nihilist make. or does it?

even diogenes, who was more radical than any professor of the last few centuries, had his own notion of virtue. i.e. he stood for something.

nihilism is a matter of degrees i suppose. the absolute nihilist would just stop breathing, no?

we can all be like humpty dumpty and decide that a word just means what we choose it to mean, but i think if we want to communicate with some clarity, "nihilism" is one of those words that have too many meanings for their own good and we have to be careful with it and put it into a specific context, e.g., "xix century russian nihilist" or "existential nihilist" or "nietzschean 'passive' nihilism", etc.

in other words, the word alone means too many things at this point to make sense casually on its own. or maybe 'glory' just means 'a nice knock-down argument', after all.

[evollove]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

noone reads him anymore.

they all HATE him. all those crit theory uni upper class marxist douches.

?? I find this hard to believe. Isn't crit theory is way too fragmented for generalizations?


-Read much Delillo? A lot of his stuff is Baudrillard and Jameson in fiction form. Not sure how I feel about that.

-You know what would be really fun? Pretend, for just five minutes, that Baudrillard is wrong about everything.

This is something I've been doing from time to time: pretend to believe in something I ordinarily don't. I mean, really getting into that mindset. It's not merely humoring the idea, it's a full-on psychological transformation.

It's kind of scary. "What if I don't come back?" But it's stimulating, often rewarding, intellectually rigorous, not to mention intellectually honest.

Try it. Just spend a fraction of time thinking of the ways Chomsky is utter bullshit. Or why patriotism is vital to a society. Why US foreign policy has been a force for good. Or why Christianity is the Truth. Or why Baudrillard is a fraud.

[EVOLghost]

Surely you have limits no? Even if it's jut 'pretend' as you say...you don't think shit like this can drive you mad?

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by evollove

?? I find this hard to believe. Isn't crit theory is way too fragmented for generalizations?


-Read much Delillo? A lot of his stuff is Baudrillard and Jameson in fiction form. Not sure how I feel about that.

-You know what would be really fun? Pretend, for just five minutes, that Baudrillard is wrong about everything.

This is something I've been doing from time to time: pretend to believe in something I ordinarily don't. I mean, really getting into that mindset. It's not merely humoring the idea, it's a full-on psychological transformation.

It's kind of scary. "What if I don't come back?" But it's stimulating, often rewarding, intellectually rigorous, not to mention intellectually honest.

Try it. Just spend a fraction of time thinking of the ways Chomsky is utter bullshit. Or why patriotism is vital to a society. Why US foreign policy has been a force for good. Or why Christianity is the Truth. Or why Baudrillard is a fraud.

I don't have much difficulty adopting that mindset since its the comfortable one where you don't have to worry about all the people your state murdered, or your inevitable death. But it's not based on anything substantial, just delusions that are too flimsy to really work, so it can't save you. I don't even see how it could make you feel better, in the long term. It is not possible for me to be convinced Christianity is the "Truth" or Amerinazism is the "Truth" either because they aren't.

You don't have to think in such black and white terms anyway.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that's true, in a way, but you realize the implications of those words, right? they're massive.



it's not that it's a must, it's that we all do it.

ironically enough, right here you're valuing: good (what good?), non-chaos (peace? order?), freedom (non-manipulation), and a kind of minimalist thrift (necessary vs. superfluous?).

earlier you said baudrillard is great, upper class academic marxists are shit.

etc.

i.e., you care.

and that's not really nihilism, is it?

to simply debunk stupid social constructs does not a nihilist make. or does it?

even diogenes, who was more radical than any professor of the last few centuries, had his own notion of virtue. i.e. he stood for something.

nihilism is a matter of degrees i suppose. the absolute nihilist would just stop breathing, no?

we can all be like humpty dumpty and decide that a word just means what we choose it to mean, but i think if we want to communicate with some clarity, "nihilism" is one of those words that have too many meanings for their own good and we have to be careful with it and put it into a specific context, e.g., "xix century russian nihilist" or "existential nihilist" or "nietzschean 'passive' nihilism", etc.

in other words, the word alone means too many things at this point to make sense casually on its own. or maybe 'glory' just means 'a nice knock-down argument', after all.

do you really think the non nihilist is NOT gonna just stop breathing either?

[evollove]

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

Surely you have limits no? Even if it's jut 'pretend' as you say...you don't think shit like this can drive you mad?

Madness is a possibility. But I "come back" rather easily, so maybe I don't go as deep as I should.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

I don't have much difficulty adopting that mindset since its the comfortable one where you don't have to worry about all the people your state murdered, or your inevitable death. But it's not based on anything substantial, just delusions that are too flimsy to really work, so it can't save you. I don't even see how it could make you feel better, in the long term. It is not possible for me to be convinced Christianity is the "Truth" or Amerinazism is the "Truth" either because they aren't.

You don't have to think in such black and white terms anyway.

Kill your idols. I think that's what I meant. Or maybe I was just trying to push you into thinking originally.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

do you really think the non nihilist is NOT gonna just stop breathing either?

everyone does eventually-- i meant voluntarily. you know, cobain one's self somehow because nothing matters.

[dead_battery]

i dont see how killing yourself is brought about by the logical conclusion that there isn't any inherent value in anything.

although maybe thinking differently robs you of the illusion that anything you do is ultimately leading anywhere but death.

and this is the last time me and you are going to back and forth on this subject.

-

also this is my thread, slavishly worship or get out all of you.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by evollove

Madness is a possibility. But I "come back" rather easily, so maybe I don't go as deep as I should.





Kill your idols. I think that's what I meant. Or maybe I was just trying to push you into thinking originally.

I've read Christian apologetics, right wing blogs and magazines, pro amerinazi stuff. I am familiar with most of what goes on in that scene atm. Dark Enlightenment, New Right, Libertardian, all that stuff. I'm ahead of you already. The quality of their "thought" is so poor that it's not even successful on its own terms. Not much originality either.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

i dont see how killing yourself is brought about by the logical conclusion that there isn't any inherent value in anything.

oh…. inherent. that's a twist in the plot. nothing has inherent value or meaning, sure. but to give nothing either value or meaning is another story. to me, the latter one is the real "nihilism." the former-- that's just obvious, no? i mean, after establishing there is no god or absolute, concluding that nothing has inherent value or meaning is just kindergarten philosophy. the real question is what to do after that.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

although maybe thinking differently robs you of the illusion that anything you do is ultimately leading anywhere but death.

really? i don't have that illusion. i'm very aware that i'm heading straight to the soylent green, sped up by disease and old age.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

and this is the last time me and you are going to back and forth on this subject.

bah... killjoy!

Originally Posted by dead_battery

also this is my thread, slavishly worship or get out all of you.

but why so needy?