The first bit was echoing corpsey on finding the word dematerialisation a trip up because everything is material. The second bit was about angst at the yawning gap of knowledge opening between technology creators and users. The third bit was some hazy bullshit about how that gap is capitalised on, justified and maintained by spiritual ideas, assumptions and deference to authority. Google as god etc. It’s all very confused I agree
 

mvuent

Void Dweller


not sure if these from constant escape would really fit inside the dissensus framework. but excitingly ambitious.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Just the other day I began organizing all of it into something that, hopefully, can be turned into a cohesive pdf. This forum is an excellent testing ground and source of feedback and refinement.

I haven't read through the dematerialization thread, but I place an almost sacred emphasis on that concept: dematerialization/immaterialization. I'm more inclined to think of it as the emergence of the metaphysical from the physical. Yes, radio communication, bluetooth, etc are physical, but are so technical and effectively alien in their engineering that they pass as being somehow beyond physics.

The emergence I am talking about is the emergence of thought from a physical neuronal infrastructure. Intelligent matter beginning to graduate from materiality. That said, anything "immaterial" or metaphysical is still dependent on its physical/material matrix, as if umbilically connected to it. The point of it all, as far as I can tell, is for intelligence to become autonomous, for intelligence to be spared from the slaughterhouse of samsara/materiality. And I do think it's possible. Because now intelligence, having born a metaphysical form form its physical form, is able to spread/reproduce/communicate at rates that would not be possible if it were still purely confined to materiality - that is, if thought was not possible. I'm using "thought" in a rather hasty fashion. Not sure if "consciousness" is a better word or not.
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
those threads really made me feel guilty at the time and still make me feel guilty now. its the sort of behaviour i try and encourage but i didnt understand them so i couldnt respond. even now i regularly think i should try harder to understand them and get the conversation going and then i dont.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I was just under the impression/insecurity there was a lack of interest, or that it came across as pretentious somehow - but I tend to project that stuff onto everyone. I'd love to elaborate more, perhaps just continuing from those threads.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
youre allowed to be pretentious. it was just to difficult for me personally. i'll have another look now.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Especially sense so many of us here have a keen rapport with, or understanding of, the kind of digital-dopamine/capitalist-realism/nihilistic-hedonia thing. That is where something needs to be built, seeing as that is where a good bulk of psychic energy is trafficking and/or mired in. And I think it is possible. But to build a foundation in a swamp seems to take a radically different kind of technique, an ostensibly hyperintellectual frenzy-effort that seems to launch you worlds away from the more identifiably realistic problems that plague us.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
I really do think it can be worth blugeoning people into submission sometimes. If you know the idea is good then it's worth persevering. Even if it means making a spectacle of yourself. We're all lazy and sometimes need shaking up.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
The other thing that you'll usually have to do is rephrase the same idea again and again. Find different ways to express it, different analogies and whatever.
 
Top