Resistance is Futile.
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
shiels
_
I like seeing how we take on each others tics
entertainment
Well-known member
boring belief for someone who prides himself on believing what is interesting and nurishing
entertainment
Well-known member
of course we have unique selves
entertainment
Well-known member
even though we might all just be an aggregate of disparate memories, ideas, beliefs, experiences, there's still only one of us
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
I think this is more true because we're all on here. The form, and the community, filters out elements of everybody's personality.
I'm a totally different person offline. I'm a wildly confident, strident dictator of people and concepts. I call people "meat matter" to their faces, and savour their convulsions.
I got bored about one sentence into that last paragraph, is it obvious?
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Great points here - would you say this is generally the same kind of control tactics as, say, championing certain film/television franchises/series that have some kind of revolutionary/pseudo-marxist tone or message, all in the interest of siphoning the energy from the masses - energy that would otherwise, as you say, be geared toward a (more informed?) revolutionary trajectory?
Here is a potentially big pivoting point, largely based on an R. Buckminster Fuller quote:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
I think a whole (new?) tactics can be unpacked from this proposition. The closest we can get to dismantling an unfavorable system is to develop improved versions of the system. If we have a set, perhaps an infinite set, of possible improved systems, there must be some subset of improved systems that are more favorable than the current model - from both the perspectives of controller and controlled. In a way, it doesn't operate according to dialectics of reform and revolution - its more proactive, rather than reactive to the "existing reality".
If we are to take Fuller's proposition as gospel, perhaps it sheds a light on the fate of the rebel: to be inevitably subsumed by that which they oppose or "fight". We seem to have viewed the rebel as a relic for a while, but we don't seem to have accepted such. Perhaps I'm generalizing though.
But this places us in an uncomfortable position, if even only as a point of departure: how can we position ourselves so as to ultimately affirm the system such as it is, in order to steer it away from unnecessary suffering? Part of the discomfort: what kind of suffering is necessary? Must this compromise be made? If we do not make it, are we necessarily relegated back to the position of the petty rebel?
The axioms that underlie this tactics:
1 - There are multiple ways/futures for a system to Objectively improve (That is, ways for capitalism to purify and become more efficient).
2 - Of this set of futures, some will result in less suffering than the "existing reality", while some will result in more.
3? - Capitalism is an essential expression of... negative entropy? Thus humans are subject to it, fated to midwife it, beyond their will.
This does require a radical affirmation of capitalism that, as far as I can tell, is anathema to any socially/politically progressive impetus with sway today.
And I want to stress the difference between this and accelerationism: Acc seems to, at essence, be geared toward overcoming capitalism by means of aligning itself with it. What I am talking about is not geared toward overcoming/dismantling capitalism, but administering its development into as bright a future as possible (not to understate the complexity of such a task).
This is also how a horseshoe swing can be engineered. A shift that is ultimately positive, coaxing the system-of-systems down the best path possible. I don't see it as a submission or a resignation, but as a reckoning, one that may invigorate certain zombie-like qualities of any progressivism bogged down by anti-capitalism.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
q. WHO INVENTED SELVES
entertainment
Well-known member
We all have inner lives. They don't have to be immutable congenital essential traits, but just because identity is performative, because we construct our selves in action don't make us not real. That's not naive romantic thinking, that's genuinely the experience of living we have.
Identity on the internet, even on Dissensus where we know each other, is extremely unstable. There is no silence. You're only there when you assert yourself. Maybe this internet algorithm thinking leaps out and attaches itself on us offline. That's when we need to go out and call our mum and look at the sunset and talk about memories.
Identity on the internet, even on Dissensus where we know each other, is extremely unstable. There is no silence. You're only there when you assert yourself. Maybe this internet algorithm thinking leaps out and attaches itself on us offline. That's when we need to go out and call our mum and look at the sunset and talk about memories.
entertainment
Well-known member
This sort of thinking: can you change how you think of your dissensus identity without posting and seeing others react and internalising the general perception. No, this is the feedback loop of online identity construction. It's imperative that this logic stays online.
luka
Well-known member
i didnt follow this but it sounds like its maybe interesting. like a battle call. what does it mean?
luka
Well-known member
i wrote a brilliant poem about it. i sent it to someone who happened to be having a psychotic episode as they read it and they said it completely encapsulated what they were going through and made things much worse and scarier. i was really happy about that. i felt a rubicon had been crossed in human development.
entertainment
Well-known member
That sounds terrifying.