The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Share

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:28 pm

    though i have never had any formal instruction in propositional logic, i've picked up enough here and there in my own investigations to be able to identify something profound about its importance in philosophy without fully understanding how. now that sounds strange because it seems one wouldn't be able to understand a significance without also understanding how such and such is significant. perhaps i understand these significant aspects in particular circumstances, which is enough to lend them a general and credible significance for the purposes of identifying certain limits to language and philosophy in a singular instance. this is all to say, i might not be able to explain the larger scheme involving the significance of something like wittgenstein's tractatus, but i can quite certainly observe instances of its application in criticizing philosophy.

    what is now more interesting to me than ever before is the 'philosophical' activity i see going on at the various forums. once one realizes that the vast majority of it is nonsense, one becomes curious about the reasons why people continue with it. well aside from the fact that they aren't aware of the nonsense they are involved in, there must be some other motivating feature that pushes them on. i don't believe the explanation is simply 'because it's habit', although i will concede that habit is a large part of it. i think rather that there is another kind of metalanguage going on... and this metalanguage does not operate with the same purposes as general, unphilosophical communication. it is an intentional activity like ordinary language, but not with the purpose of conveying any information... since, on account of it being based primarily in nonsense, it literally can't convey any information. what then is it doing?

    whatever it's doing, it must be far simpler than the efforts of real philosophy; it isn't that these people have discovered some great insight into a question or problem 'about' the world or anything in it, because if they did, they wouldn't be writing nonsense. i think rather that in their own heads, confused thoughts lead them to explicative writing in which they believe themselves to be representing real problems and, then, solving them.

    well then i guess there is some real philosophy here, only it isn't in any apprehension of the world, but an apprehension of one's own confusion in a kind of simulation. the feeling of the 'problem' is very real, only it's a problem with their own internal incoherency.

    how very strange that the world would become like this. generation after generation of philosophers, all lost in an imaginary reverie in their heads... not ever making the first real contact with the world. i mean; contact with the real world as it truly is would not generate such confusions. it is irreducibly simple, and when wittgenstein says 'what we cannot speak of, etc.', he does not mean there are things which can be spoken about if only we understood them. he means there are not the problems and questions we seem to have confronted when we use and think with our language. the 'passing by in silence' does not mean 'ignoring'... it means realizing there is nothing there in the first place.

    of course philosophers will protest that this is trivializing philosophy, but it isn't. it is, in fact, elevating philosophy to a new height accessible to thinkers and logicians who've happened upon real problems. one such problem is, i believe, that hitherto philosophy has involved so much nonsense. this is a profound statement about man... a very powerful almost metaphysical statement about man. it says that inherent to man's nature is that he remain irrevocably confused. and since this confusion is a testimony to his meaninglessness, i.e., that his philosophical exploits are literally and logically meaningless, a real philosopher is a nihilist through attrition. not because he has no values, but because he must adopt an attitude toward a world in which the vast majority, through their confusion, are themselves unable to recognize real problems and therefore are unable to ask real questions, confront real problems.  

    hmm. i think what has happened is a schizophrenic splitting of the mind due to the vestigial complexity of language. the cogito, the pre-reflective awareness, is present to this imaginary reverie in the same way it was previously immediately aware of the world before it developed language. now, instead of the mind occupying itself directly with the world, it occupies itself with another part of itself, a splitting induced by the evolution of a language, the use of which, by people who do not understand the logical structures of their language, results in the production of inexorable nonsense they cannot be aware of.

    i used to be like this, but i recovered. and having been like this, i have an affinity with it... can recognize it when i see it. don't get me wrong, it is a fascinating study of man. it is a characteristic that is both adorable and repulsive at the same time. adorable in that they know no better... but look at them try! repulsive in that they can't know any better, and will remain this way until they die.

    sure, i'll do philosophy with you, but only as a sport. truth is much simpler than you all believe. if i didn't let you think it was a noble endeavor fit only for the best, you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. you'd have to be normal and ordinary again.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:14 pm

    one example of philosophy doing no real work is when you observe two or more people in a conversation in which (a) an assertion is made, (b) a challenge is presented to the assertion, (c) a defense for the assertion is offered which contains another set of assertions, (d) the other assertions are then challenged, and finally, (e) a tangent takes direction in which everyone goes, without remembering or ever getting back to the initial thesis.

    this is how you know nothing is happening but the forming of a rhizome which encounters no resistence. and where there is no resistence, there are no real problems. i mean there are problems 'in there', but they are no sooner resolved than they are recognized... and even if they are, there is no substance to such resolutions. rather only the correction of a conceptual problem, a problem that's in the head and not in the world. and you can't say a problem in the head is in the world, since the head is in the world. the difference between a head problem and a world problem is that a solution to a world problem is ostensive; one can point and say 'there is the solution'.

    during the middle and end stages of the formation of the rhizome, the motivation is no longer problem identification and solution, but simpler things like:

    1. i better keep arguing or else everyone will think i've submitted to being wrong
    2. at 2:30 i'm usually at my computer posting at [insert forum]. oh look, it's 2:30. better post something.
    3. i don't like this guy so i want to insult him by trying to make him feel stupid
    4. i admire this guy and would benefit publically from his approval; let me agree with him
    5. i think i have a following, so better give them something to read.

    this is some of the metalanguage i was talking about earlier. remember, when something said is so nonsensical, the effort behind it can't be 'to state the truth' unless the person is only in a reverie with himself... working out his own feeling of the 'problem' he experiences in his confused thinking about the meaning of a nonsensical thing said by somebody else. there is no connecting in any of this, see. in situations like this, the connecting is done through and with a tacit understanding and unspoken agreement of/with the activity of the metalanguage. one steps back for a minute, catches a glimpse of the senselessness of the language, and thinks "he's not wanting to be wrong" and "he's trying to impress me" and "he enjoys confounding others", etc.

    we are in a new age, one in which we don't say what we mean, and don't mean what we say. we can't, because what we say is nonsense, and what we mean can't be spoken about openly. this is because everyone is collectively involved in being motivated by things 'human, all too human.'

    or, on he other hand, if he truly is the philanthropist and has a genuine love of knowledge (insert philosopher), the poor sod isn't aware of his own confusion, and as such is doing no real work.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:21 pm

    there is only one brand of philosophical nonsense that can be excused, and that is eastern philosophy/mysticism/metaphysics. they don't know any better because they didn't have a spinoza, or a hume, or a kant, or a stirner, or a nietzsche, or a wittgenstein. but the westerns did, so they have no excuse.

    see, there is a magic of innocence in the eastern's thinking. they are still and will always be young. but the westerns, who have grown old and weary and yet still pretend to be young... that shit doesn't cut the mustard. they know better, and we know they know better. one can't pretend to be ignorant. not anymore.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:49 am

    remarks on cRap music:

    lack of thematic depth and substance, appealing to degenerates who are only able to comprehend and respond to the simplest and crudest symbols and subtext. a song about twerking fat asses, gun play, my fat stacks, etc.

    anybody who has anything to do with this garbage betrays an essential vulgar aspect of their character. that they are even able to be attracted to it, think there is any depth and greatness in it, demonstrates a profanity of soul. how then would they be capable of anything really profound? you might say that the first prerequisite for being profound in anything would be to experience a natural repulsion to such garbage and anyone who associates with it. to lack this natural sense of taste probably means one also lacks the necessary nuance and subtlety to understand many other things; if he is so easily taken by it and fascinated with it, he's not able to see through it, see it for what it is in its degeneracy... how many other things fascinate him that are as easily transparent and void of real depth or substance?

    one has to be an ultimately shallow and mediocre person to be moved by such garbage and find any value in it.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:37 pm

    which is the more amusing spectacle to behold in the music industry; cRap music or country music?

    with cRap music we have this progression:

    1. slavery is abolished and negroes are eventually completely integrated into american society. fast forward a century; through a combination of both external influence such as lack of privilege and opportunity due to the effects of white racism, and internal influence such as various factors pertaining to genetic inferiority (e.g., lower IQs), negroes become concentrated into a lower social and economic class.

    2. 1980s. degenerate negro reprobates from suburban ghettos begin writing and singing rhymes to synthesized music in local community clubs in an effort to protest civil and social tension/conflicts they are experiencing.

    3. bourgeois privately owned record companies seize opportunity to profit from new music form and begin producing it at astonishing rates. enter the cRap genre. negative effects of it on society are ignored by capitalist opportunists who profit from selling it. conditions involving social conflicts and tensions for negroes become worse, not better.

    4. conservative america... which is essentially founded on the free market principles of capitalism, then complains about the disaster it created by capitalizing on such garbage in the first place. magnificent irony.

    with country music we have this progression:

    1. poor white families concentrated in rural areas are unable to migrate into industrialized cities. generations with a lack of education causes them to remain backward; traditional christian values are upheld (poverty increases faith, faith justifies suffering the poverty), virtues such as the protestant work ethic are celebrated. ergo, dumb white man remains oblivious to his being exploited by the capitalist machine, and is actually proud of it. god fearing, hard working, ... be a 'simple man' (lynyrd skynyrd), easily amused by the simplest things; fishing, four-wheeling, going to the county fair with amy lee, etc.

    2. traditional blue grass forms of country music morph into country pop and rock during the 60s and 70s after bourgeois privately owned record companies seize opportunity to profit from a modernized version of traditional genre. every song that follows is the same: she's a good girl, i'm a proud man, pride in the south, jacked up truck, my twelve gauge shotgun, look at them boots, drinking at the honkytonk bar, praise jesus, i can plow a field all day long, god bless ermerica, etc. a way of life is engendered, one that emulates the attitude of the backward, christian working class western proletariat.

    which of these disasters is the better joke? the negro or the country boy? i'm undecided. both histories are wonderfully entertaining.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:52 pm

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=175120

    who are the alpha males at ILP? it's a difficult decision.

    if i had to choose between sheldon, leonard, howard, raj, or wil wheaton, i'd probably choose penny.

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:16 pm

    if we agree that nature is nonteleological, we are admitting there can be no 'error' in any particular state of affairs or events in the universe, since if we were to suppose there was some such 'error' in some such state of affairs or events, this supposition would imply that we are also asserting there is some particular 'purpose' which is not being served, some such 'intention' that nature has, some such 'end' that has not been reached, the resulting state of affairs and events we have called 'error' being some kind of 'accident' instead of some kind of success.

    contrarily, if we say that nature is teleological, we imply that there must be something beyond the state of affairs and events in the universe which is the thing that has established the purpose and direction of such states of affairs and events. but if that is the case, can there truly be 'error' in this scenario? for surely the thing which has established the purpose and direction for the affairs and events in the universe must either be something that allows such 'errors' to occur, or, is not truly in control of the affairs and events in the first place in that it is unable to prevent the course of events from straying from their purposes. if the latter, then nature is again nonteleological and the thing which we have ascribed 'intention' and 'purpose' to is just another part of nature and not beyond it... not in 'control' of it.

    so in either case, you end up with a nonteleological universe in which there can be no 'error'... because there is no 'correct' way for the universe to be.

    what then lies behind a human being's dissatisfaction with any particular circumstances he finds himself in? is this a complaint that something is 'wrong' in the universe, or rather just an expression of himself finding something disagreeable?

    the problem here is in the mood of the assertion. the indicative mood that something is wrong cannot be an expression of a categorical imperative, only a hypothetical imperative. this means that, say, a person's objection to leftism and the socio-political changes occurring because of the influence of such, isn't able to assert there is imperative error in the affairs and events that happen... only that he or she is personally dissatisfied, and that one's complaint is relevant insofar as it expresses an objection to affairs and events that aren't good for satisfying said person.

    what we usually see however is a sleight of hand. the philosopher knows he can't get away with simply stating that he is unsatisfied with the world, since if he can't present the problem that is troubling him as an 'objective' problem, i.e., as a real teleological error in the very fabric of space and time, he's not going to be able to persuade his audience to give his complaint any serious attention. it can't just be a personal preference. he has to be able to state matter-of-factly that 'the world is wrong' or 'the world is getting worse' in order to give his complaint any substance.

    you may call this thesis the metaphysics of the complaint, and there is a whole list of theoretical and psychological problems involved with it; failing to recognize the fact/value distinction, thinking 'morally', thinking teleologically, a heavy sentimental and pessimistic soul that is romancing the past, a slowness of dexterity and ability to adapt and optimize... to take under one's control and learn to exploit the problem instead of trying to change it, tying to 'correct' it.

    always remember; every generation of man gives way to a new generation which then becomes the object of suspicion and complaint for the old generation that is being replaced. man loves to isolate a single instance along the continuum of evolution, criticize that instance according to standards and criterion that are no longer relevant to this new stage, and sink into ressentiment when he finds the world will pay no attention to his complaints or conform to his standards.

    for myself, the anarcho-egoist, i prefer to think of the socio-political as a work of art that can either become more or less interesting. but there is no 'right' way for this work to be. i even prefer that there be extraordinary conflict in it, as that's often what makes it so interesting. to be able to view the world as a comedy... not even a tragic comedy, since that would entail some terrible loss for the hero. but there are no heroes anymore, or rather, there are heroes, but they are never political. politics is below them, so they lose nothing important in a socio-political disaster. what is the art of herding the masses to a hero? a comedy, perhaps?


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm

    i was once a communist, then a fascist, then an anarcho-capitalist, then a capitalist with an invisible hand... though not necessarily in that order. i was even a monarchist for a short period once when after tasting the chocolate eclairs my beautiful grandmother made, i was certain that she could rule the world on account of it. i embodied the entire spectrum of the political struggle and traversed every nook and cranny of it from the steps of the republic to the fucking frankfurt school. i read adam smith through the eyes of marx, then marx through the eyes of adam smith, then marx and smith through the eyes of hegel, then hegel through the eyes of hume. wait, hume was before hegel, wasn't he? whatever. you know what i mean. the point is, I KNEW MAN up and down, inside and out. i knew what he was and what he needed, and i set out as a garage philosopher over the course of ten years and countless forums to answer the great enigmatic question; "what do we do with man?"

    it wasn't until i found myself embedded inside of the greatest most outrageous possible political conflicts a man can find himself in, save being water-boarded by CIA agents in a warehouse somewhere, that i abandoned my quest to perfect man and focused my efforts on my own immediate, personal conflict with the civil contract and the war i would wage against those insidious sonsabitches that betrayed me by violating it. i had a new purpose, and this purpose demanded every bit of my attention. the problem of man fell into the background and hasn't since become important again.

    what you need, i say again, is not some abstract theorectical problem, but a very real and immediate conflict that puts your freedom (to the extent that it exists) at stake. only then will you, the average white philosopher, be able to drop the question of man and then pick up the pieces.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:28 pm

    i think the future of cybernetic man won't be a dystopian problem if they are able to design it so that it, cyberman, possesses a fully functioning dopaminergic system. because really that's what adds the 'joy' to life... its all happening in that mysterious and as of yet unexplained event when the action potentials force the dendrite to fire and the transmitters are absorbed by the receptors. why this causes such qualia as 'joy' and 'pleasure' to happen is a good question but for the sake of my argument, not important. it works. that's what's important.

    now can you replicate this system with synthetic materials, or is it only possible with/through cellular based tissues?

    without it, you'll have a machine that operates only according to mechanical protocols, and as such, won't be aware of itself. it's that transition into and out of equilibrium, into and out of temporary stasis, that gives rise to the thought "this rocks" and "this sucks". so how much of the cogito would be possible if a machine doesn't oscillate between these two states?

    if there is a soul in man, i'm telling you it has something to do with his reward system.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:10 pm

    a contemporary of mine recently asked: "you know what my main issue with communism is? that whole cultural cleansing bullshit. what's up with that, b?"

    i should now like to venture an answer to this question.

    so the communist theory that existed prior to the appearance of marx and the industrial revolution would not really be considered an organized body of theory... more like a scattered collection of aphoristic remarks when compared to something like das kapital. dudes like saint simon were the first communist thinkers in that they observed what they thought were clear conflicts revolving around the opposition of classes, wealthy and poor, which they rightly traced back to the economic relationships between said classes. well i mean the idea of 'collective ownership' is certainly archaic and even the mesopotamians messed around with it, sure. but here, the beginnings of communist 'principles' can be found, though nothing yet is thoroughly developed which would serve to turn any heads in the way of critiquing feudalism and capitalism. really what was happening at this point was simple: dude A thinks to himself "why is dude B taking the stuff i make and trading/selling it for other stuff and somehow acquiring more property than me by doing so?"

    now when the industrial age comes about, that simple question becomes the subject of philosophical and scientific speculation and is no longer the trivial banter of a few slaves and peasants. so what the communist theorists did was examine that question on a much grander scale, and in coming up with a solution to the problem, they had to also put forth a means to achieving it. enter ideology, which (for a stirnerite who holds no fixed ideas and isn't intimidated by spooks) is nothing more than formalized propaganda, or education, or indoctrination. the 'cultural cleansing' asked about by my contemporary amounts to 'teaching' people how their previous beliefs, views and social practices are not compatible with the new society that will be based on a collective ownership of the means of production. to cleanse culturally is to take a group of people and convince them that doing and thinking X will get them the same satisfaction in life minus all the extraneous trouble created for the other guy by doing and thinking Y, instead.

    to re-educate... to provide a list of precepts to be followed if one finds themselves in situation a, b or c.

    so what was important about all this is that we haven't here just a philosophy, but an actual practice, an actual pragmatism in praxis, a real way to apply principles that are to guide people in life. be charitable. share your shit. work hard, be proud of your abilities, proud that you are providing for everyone and that everyone appreciates that. think collectively... think 'we' instead of 'i', look for ways to cooperate which benefits everyone. shit like that.

    the methods of indoctrination always placed primary importance on teaching the youth, since they are the most impressionable, most malleable. not yet... well, brainwashed by the other propaganda... the capitalism/individualism stuff.

    now let me show you some good irony. most, if not all, of these forum 'conservatives' who spend all day lambasting leftism and communism and socialism and all that shit, wouldn't notice a bit of difference in the lives they live even if they lived in a fucking orwellian nightmare. why? because they'd be doing the same shit, everyday. what i mean is, none of them are unique or exceptional enough to constitute any precedence to the danger of them losing their happiness. it wouldn't matter if these knuckleheads had to work a 9 to 5, it wouldn't matter if they didn't own as much shit, it wouldn't matter if they all dressed in matching uniforms. so for all intents and purposes, there's no fucking difference in the things that count in their lives to make them happy, satisfied, content.

    with that said, i'll say it again; they are all engaged in a fantasy role play in their heads in which each of them is the mighty and noble soul fighting against the forces of corruption, because their actual lives involve no such thing.

    really though, all culturalizing involves either deculturalizing or preventing some other cultrualization from taking form. the only reason why the communist propaganda machine and things like mao's little red book get so much bad PR is because we are noticing the immense concentration of effort in educating, not that there is a educating going on. capitalist indoctrination, on the other hand, requires no such concentration because it, at the time, was/is the standing norm. but if you go back to the end of the feudalism period, you'd no doubt notice a bunch of ruckus being made about 'these new ideas they are calling capitalism', etc.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:14 pm

    gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with biology. the reason is, the sub atomic particles that compose the atoms that compose the molecules that compose the chromosomes that compose the sex cells are in a quantum superposition. gender assignment occurs during observation, through what is called 'the collapse of the date function'. it is only when the person is observed and considered to be someone you would date or not date, that you can become aware of gender.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:53 am

    Watch out quora, for rosa lichtenstein is upon you

    https://www.quora.com/profile/Rosa-Lichtenstein

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:54 pm

    [edited for vacant forum]

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 10:26 am

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/AAA_Socialist_Economy.htm

    fuck it, let's try it. can't get any worse than it already is. if the goal is to increase everyone's free time so they can have opportunities to be more creative, perhaps something interesting might actually come out of it. personally i don't see much coming from the bourgeois class in terms of creativity (save more creative ways to exploit the proletariat). all they seem to do is loiter and take up space.  i mean seriously, show me something fantastic the bourgeois has ever done that would justify making their free time available by forcing a number of other people to do their share of the work or produce the commodities and services they exploit to be able to have such free time.

    i'd sooner give five people three hours of free time than i would give two people five hours of free time... unless those two people did something fantastic enough to justify giving them more free time than the others.

    this is how you engineer a society. and it'll take some coercion because the parasite bourgeoisie ain't gonna give up their free time without a fight. but think of all the possibilities you'd be opening up for human creativity if by forcing the parasites to actually produce something, you significantly reduce the work load for society, thereby giving everyone more free time.

    shit man, i think this might be workable. fuck i might become a socialist again just to see if i can make it happen. of course i won't be 'among' you all in this new society because you're laws don't apply to me, but i can certainly help you help others. that's what you wanna do, right? make the world a better place? okay, we can do that, but you gotta help me help you help the world. the first thing we need to do is allocate all that free time you have to be mediocre and put you to work doing something that results in something less mediocre than you are. imagine the profound change we would observe in the world if all the mediocre bourgeoisie had less time to be mediocre.

    we could put them to work washing dishes. even creating a thoroughly washed pot is a productive step forward for the bourgeoisie, and would prove to be quite impressive.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 2:27 pm

    http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1389p90-c-rap#76811

    satyr's doing a fine job bashing cRap music over at KT.

    tell ya why that garbage is so offensive. there's two parts to this offense. the first part is the 'music', the more important second part is the people who associate with it... more specifically, the attitude of the people who associate with it. in the shortest words possible, they exhibit an undeserved, unearned sense of grandiosity, and this offends people who have earned, and therefore deserved, their greatness. these invalids depreciate the sacredness and pride a person has who's character has been formed through real trial and error, real struggle, real tests, real suffering. a truly proud person who has something with some substance to be proud of, looks at these invalids and wonders why all the swagger and bravado when they have done nothing. and not only that, another insufferable irony is added to the first; these degenerates, who should be the most modest by virtue of their lowly nature, are instead the most arrogant. a perfect reversal of what should be happening! ah but that's what it's about today, isn't it? telling everyone they're great and then selling them a few trends and symbols so they can caricature greatness. and what makes it even easier is the fact that nobody (except for us older dudes) recognizes the caricature for what it is because they are unable to comprehend what greatness is... well because it doesn't exist anymore. greatness is an image, a product, a fashioned archetype through movies and songs and 'you're a victim' narratives... all sold to a characteristically empty consumer base waiting to be filled up with something to occupy the void and give them identity.

    today you don't have to build character. all you have to do is buy it. what you wear, how you talk, how you walk, what you drive, your music, what political rhetoric you hear somewhere an then repeat without understanding any of it (this you have at the ready so you won't sound completely dumb when others like you bring up politics in a conversation somewhere).

    yeah it's offensive alright. to see some clown prancing around because he thinks he's somebody, when it would take five of him to equal one of me.

    back in the 80s and early 90s rap music was okay... but today it's gotten entirely out of hand. there's nothing to complain about today; the fucking government is ready and willing to give you everything for free, for fuck's sake! if you're still a struggling negro in today's world, you've got to be an idiot. you don't need but an IQ of seventy to understand how to sit down in the waiting room of the social services building... so what's the excuse this time?



    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 2:51 pm

    keeping in mind what this is, it is good... for what it is. especially the fact that rabbit isn't at all pretentious. he is white trash. he does live in a trailer with his mom. his homeboy did fuck his girl. he did get beat up by six goons, etc., etc. and yet without any bravado whatsoever, he eats these niggas like they was a snack.

    also delightful is the fact that eminem is white... a white boy that came out of nowhere and pwned the rap industry over night. niggas can't stand that, and none sense have been able to rap like him. his delivery is untouchable.



    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 3:22 pm

    lol go to 3:47. dude says it straight up; "you don't want a beef with eminem. he shreds MCs, like for real."



    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 7:44 pm

    you would have to first accept this paradox before you are able to grasp why eminem is the greatest rap phenomena that has existed so far, and in all probability, the very terminus of the genre itself. the paradox is this: if rap music is garbage, how would the greatest rapper be defined as great if he is part of something that can't be great. the secret answer to this question is... the greatest one always appears as a caricature, a parody, a mockery of the type he will play at being so easily, and in doing so humiliate all those prior to his appearance by simplifying what they struggle to be. an example would be frank zappa, the 'rock' scene he appeared in, and the devastation he left behind in his wake. the paradox is that he did 'rock' better than anyone before him while also making a joke out of it. the genre was humbled by his appearance, just as the rap genre is humbled by eminem's appearance.

    now i wouldn't say that either of them didn't enjoy what they were/are doing. it's not that they don't like it... just that they are able to do it just as good as anyone else if not better but without the spirit of seriousness that the others have. when eminem raps, he's playing around, clowning around, being silly on purpose, while at the same time producing a subliminal caricature of the elements and themes the other serious rappers hold so dear to them as being what they think is the depth of the art that qualifies it as something profound. to add insult to this injury of the sacred, he keeps and even improves the form of the rap while he destroys the substance (though his trivializing it).

    listen to some of his stuff and you'll note the hyperbole and histrionic nature of it without ever sensing any nuance in an attempt to be 'hard' or 'gangsta', like all the other rappers. at times he even exaggerates that dorky white image we are expected to have of the white rapper... but then at the same time, his rhythm, meter, tempo, and other technical strengths true to the form are indisputably superior. when we hear it we are seized by a pleasant combination of surprises; it confuses us (is this guy kidding?), it disorients us (he just extended that line and resolved it unexpectedly on the third beat instead of the fourth, etc.), it amuses us (isn't that silly? hahaha), and finally impresses us through it's overall sophistication once all these elements are combined and understood as caricature. perfectly well rounded; silly enough at times to remind us of the joke that the genre is, but able to mimic the form and substance by delivering a solid punch when necessary so that we don't disregard him as an impostor. in other words, he's 'gangsta' when he needs to be, especially when he's 'dissed' by other rappers. i especially enjoy this aspect of it. when 'slim shady' arrived on the scene, he wasn't trying to be the tough guy... just have some fun dropping rhymes. it was only after all the black rappers tried to clown him that he transformed into a lyrical assassin and shut them all down. since then, they all knew not to fuck with slim shady.

    exhibit a: eminem puts the nail in benzino's coffin




    machine gun kelly, another white rapper, learned the hard way. in this one (and the next) you'll also hear eminem mock the new millennial generation of rap called 'mumble rap'.





    somebody tell these eminem critics that while it is unfortunate that a white boy should come along and master everything they've ever tried in rap, the good news is the rap genre is almost over, so there's nothing left in it for them anyway.




    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 8:24 pm

    Okay here he goes about this mumble rap trash. Fucking hilarious.



    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Yesterday at 9:35 pm

    Benzino is known for being involved, since 2003, in a widely publicized feud with rapper Eminem as Benzino called him "2003 Vanilla Ice". Since then the pair have been creating diss tracks about each other, including Benzino's "Pull Your Skirt Up" and "Die Another Day" or Eminem's "The Sauce" and "Nail in the Coffin". As a continuation of this animosity between the two, Benzino released a diss mixtape Benzino Presents: Die Another Day: Flawless Victory, disparaging Eminem and his record label.

    it sounds as if this dispute runs deeper than what's mentioned above but i can't seem to find any information on it. but this is some of the stuff that enriches rap music (insofar as it can be enriched). you don't get stuff like this in any other kind of music. because the industry is crawling with fakes, back-stabbers, blackmailers and liars, disputes get going which fuel the dramatic content that is so well expressed through rap.

    you'd be lying if you listened to this and said you didn't like it because you don't like rap. you might not like rap, but you like this. this shit is real, and the beat/melody has a driving force that you won't deny, and energy. eminem pulls you in, takes you there, you're in this shit, gangsta, right there with him....

    i'm very particular about what rap i'll listen to, and i know when i hear good rap.



    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Today at 1:44 pm

    certainly real wrote:Yes, everything God does is perfect (maximally good all things considered). There's a clear distinction between:

    1) Being Perfect and doing Perfectly
    2) Doing something to become Perfect

    The Perfect being remains Perfect provided that its traits that amount to true Perfection are unaltered. It's creation of us does not alter its traits in any way.

    2 is absurd. 1 is not. God created us, so it's something that amounts to a maximally good outcome all things considered. This isn't the only possible maximally good outcome with regards to our potential. It is one of many. Omnibenevolance can be exercised in endless ways.

    this gentleman is mistaken, but let us not be also. first, god 'does' nothing, because there is not a transitive entity outside of reality that acts upon it as if it were a thing to be done something with. and to the extent that god is 'activity' itself, such activity is not more or less 'perfect' since perfection is a degree of quality given to a thing or process that has an end. nature has no end, so it cannot be more or less perfect, because it has no more or less ideal state. what is 'good' then is only an increase in a capacity to act, while what is a bad is whatever restricts that capacity. there is no 'benevolence' in any of this, except what is expressed by that collection of attributes we call the 'human being', in its moral activity.

    this gentleman is still thinking from within the anthropomorphic cartesian paradigm, and would do well to pay a visit to that prince of philosophers, one baruch spinoza. somebody go tell him, quick.


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    promethean75

    Posts : 122
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 Today at 4:58 pm

    a contemporary recently asked of me: "tell me more about the naivety of eastern philosophy." i should now like to venture an explanation for this assertion.

    my point of departure will be from an agreement to grant that the theories outlined in this collection of essays (specifically 1, 2 and 3) are to be assumed to be true before we move any further. i would also mention that those detractors to communist theory should not think of these essays as being an attempt to mitigate communist theory, nor as an effort to promote it. the premises and conclusions stand alone and have nothing to do with what political implications might be made with them, or rather to what purpose and affect they might be used for.

    now true to my form i shall spend far less time than i ought explaining myself immediately after making such a grand entrance. in fact, i'm already bored with the matter and i'm not even a paragraph into it. talk about anticlimactic.

    alright, how do i explain this as quickly as possible. lemme try this.

    you have a similar enough evolution of language precursors occurring in people's all over the world at about the same time. next you have a very, very gradual change in linguistic development between peoples who are evolving in more or less complex social and economic structures. people that interact in simpler structures maintain the simpler language forms while people who find themselves in more complicated structures develop new facets of language more rapidly.

    but in any case, the sanctioning of language... which is to say the authority that gives the meaning of a language its veracity... is always focused and concentrated in the hands/control of those who have the responsibility of maintaining social and economic order among the people. incidentally, the more the language that is licensed guarantees those in power will remain in power, the less such language is critically analyzed and scrutinized by those who sanction it.

    now you'll note in the essays it is said that philosophy was, by and large, more of an 'invention' reflecting the desire of the ruling class to bolster its own existence by developing systems of thought that denote necessarily their right and responsibility to rule.... rather than indifferent reflection on the nature of reality and the reading of concepts 'from' it rather than the imposition of concepts 'on' it. an example would be; theologies that attempt to explain the universe in terms of a systematic order created by a law giver, and thereby place authority into the hands of those philosophers and priests who've discovered such knowledge, as a kind of revelatory right. ergo, the order and form of government reflected the order and form of the universe, which in turn reflected the order and form of the laws given by god.

    in the east, similar stages had also been reached though philosophical vocabularies were different. what was the same was that philosophical concepts not directly derived from experience alone were invented and imposed onto nature in that same, unconscious effort... i should say unconscious anthropocentric effort (yeah that's much better)... that reflected the desire of the ruling class to keep its power and sanction itself as the ultimate authority. take for instance the chinese mandate of heaven concept, legalism, and the philosophy of confucius. in these two philosophies there is very little epistemology and a strong presence of mysticism and ethics. as such, there is no active skepticism to challenge the generally accepted ideas of the time.

    in the west, there was a revolution of thought that didn't occur with the same force in the east. the first real challenge to the dogmatic philosophy that had been refining itself though the several centuries up to about the 16th was the enlightenment philosophy, probably best characterized as baconian. prior to that, platonism or platonic realism, while being epistemological and therefore appearing as if it had addressed skepticism proper, was in fact a rational dogma that was so strengthened by its misrepresentation of skepticism, it went unchallenged until the age of enlightenment.

    with the inception of the principles of induction/deduction and the empirical method of observation and the acquisition of knowledge, hitherto accepted philosophical concepts and theories came under closer inspection. thus began the renovation of philosophy, and consequently, when the industrial age began a couple centuries later, philosophical systems of thought began to focus on more immediate and pragmatic questions such as the best modes of production, the best form of government for such a large body of working citizens, better ways to improve the sciences and technologies, etc. to take up these tasks, a new philosophical mode of thinking had to be acquired... one which was more methodologically verifiable... one which mirrored, as much as possible, the natural sciences.

    the philosophy of empiricism dominated the scene and rationalist philosophers contributed little in improving the above conditions, and as a result, became the subject of skeptical investigation. a major event to come out of this was atheism, and with the collapse of the old platonism that supported religious philosophy, so also did a new suspicion arise to question the legitimacy of the authoritarian structures that ruled society. finally philosophy itself comes under interrogation through positivism (a la comte) and logicians begin an attack on the very notion of metaphysics.

    now pause here and go east. what's happening at this time? they are evolving, but much slower, and have yet even to experience the industrial revolution and theoretical advancements brought about during it. they still practice political systems that are entrenched in theological/metaphysical systems of thought; theocratic philosophy governs socially, politically and economically. caste systems still operate. in such countries in the east where not even the first minor industrial advancements have been achieved, much more rigid mysticisms still operate (buddhism, hinduism, daoism). these countries, or regions i should say, are stuck in a pre-enlightenment, post-platonic age of reason, and have not experienced the intellectual revolution that led the west to the empirical skepticism that brought such scrutiny to what i described earlier as 'the imposition of concepts 'on' to reality and nature'.

    th naivety i speak of is this 'innocent backwardness' the east has only just recently progressed from, although being countries with strong tradition and a lack of exposure to the more modern systems of philosophy working in the west, they still practice their mysticisms. these being the remainders of those anachronistic ruling class philosophies that took shape when their societies were much smaller and simpler, consisting of a basic hierarchy of order, rank and power.

    recall the vedic caste system and the current social customs existing in india today... as well as the continuation of confucian philosophy in china. these philosophies were either the direct product of a ruling class of thinkers or the product of thinkers in union with a ruling class. it was not for nothing that feuerbach and marx held religion in such contempt. they recognized the origins and machinations of its history, and the effects it has had on distracting those who are under the immediate power of a governing class (of whatever form).


    _________________
    Didacts and Narpets

    Sponsored content

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Sponsored content

      Similar topics

      -

      Current date/time is Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:18 pm