>spooks >not semiotics

don't understand that thread but I love how you can find hand paintings like that all over the world
someone went there thousands of years ago and decided to leave a mark for other people to know

>>1365992
>don't understand that thread

Semiotics. Semantics. Symbols. All have the same place in communication as they do hands on that wall. Ideas communicated less as rationalizations and more what rationalization would look like under a certain set of emotions, themselves simulated. All is symbols.

Spooks are an outdated concept that's far easier to understand, and yet wrong. In fact, falling to semiotics more than anyone by basing it only upon that.

>>1366014
you havent read stirner, have you?

>>1366318
Arguing you're enlightened by Stirner in the same way and relevance it was in the 19th century is a spook is a symbol.

>>1366329
please read stirner before you make threads about his concepts. you have no idea what a spook is.