Is the problem with Postmodernity that it represents a degeneration

File: IMG_2287.jpg (198KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1100x619px

>>9759456
Tl;dr: textual analysis can't prevent August 6, 1945 Hiroshima.

>>9759456
the problem with postmodernity is that a vanishingly small proportion of people use it to understand texts, and everyone else uses it as an excuse to push any kind of gibberish on their readers. yes, Virilio, we're looking at you, asshole.

File: img_0537.jpg (874KB, 2500x1867px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 2500x1867px

kind of a random thought but i often feel much the same way. what is called postmodernity only describes one side of the problem. it's not so crazy to say that we don't really have postmodernity, what we have are a million atomized bad-faith modernists concealing their actual differences beneath a vein of irony (beneath this, a deeply troubling narcissism) and so on. now presently re-tribalizing themselves but refusing to give up the Big One that binds them all together

>tlp: relativism for you, absolutism for me

>hiroshima
textual analysis can't prevent events in the past which happened. it may be able to identify patterns that lead to the repetition of those events in the future. depends on how generally stupid & paranoid the human race desires to become

>Is postmodern in some essential way conservative?
perhaps in the sense that there is a bogus sense of being postmodern which does everything possible to conserve *identity.* which wasn't really there in modernism and, in coming under siege in an era of postmodernity, is *more* threatened, which makes people *more* defensive, which makes them double down *harder* on it, which makes it appear.
it does this by looking at things at the level of surfaces that imply a depth which isn't really there (but manifests as restlessness, anxiety, thymos, continual craving for recognition, much else)

zizek talks about this also

>is there some literature which corresponds to this idea of mine?
lots of theory. reading history of technology (and media!) & so on is a good idea. the postmodern landscape is inseparable from virtual/media/simulated/meme landscape. even if stuff like barthes/death of the author seems played today it all contributed to this stew we now live in

all those critical theory guys will have something interesting for you

>What do you guys think?
sounds cool anon good luck

>>9759547
sorry. ofc identity is there in modernism also. dumb remark, fucked-face &c.

I wish the people for who we use the umbrella term "postmodern" would write in clear language
They use unclear language to sound deep while at the surface level it isn't that deep at all, but does sometimes have interesting ideas

>>9759456

Jesus Christ. This is just egregious memeing.
Explain the difference between modern and postmodern and then we'll think about replying in a meaningful way. Until you clearly draw a distinction between the two terms you've employed then you're full of utter shit.
DEFINE
YOUR
TERMS

Why do you care?

File: IMG_1805.jpg (60KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 540x405px

>>9759547
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I went grocery shopping and thought that perhaps the trivialization of a specialized term like postmodern does in fact corrode whatever meaning it could represent. I thought that whatever cultural milieu produced the atom-bomb and the holocaust was decreed a failure, that modernity once understood in reference to these consequences (the consequences of logical positivism, of social technology qua Marx, of military technology, of technology generally) was decreed a failure, a reactionary demarcation was established, the other side of this line becoming known as post-modern, implying a hopeful transition but ultimately based on the teleological assumption that modernity had failed, needed revision and revision necessitated a revisitation of the conditions that produced Modernity. And ultimately, as Christ said, a tree may be judged by the fruits it bears; that instead of a progress, postmodernity has produced a reemphasis of hierarchy, a resurgence of nationalism, of tribalistic identity (white nationalism, transactivism) and generally a metastasis of the problems which Modernity, we suppose, failed to solve. I'm reading Buckminster Fuller now and he anticipates so much of this it is stunning. I also think Scientology is loosely based on his ideas.
>>9759603
Post modernity does this exhaustively, suggested that modernity was the proliferation of meta-narratives, the ideology of positivism being one of them, that such narratives were insufficient referents of real experience, that cultural production was too concentrated around the centers of these narratives, that decentralization is needed and therefore representation must be more diverse. I think the consequences of diversified representation is that the great number of humanity was not in reality enfranchised towards modernity, that premodern thought continued beneath, inbetween and around Modernity's grand narratives, and with technological assistance, the postmodern project of decentralizing representation is bringing these vestigial notions to the fore again, that instead of producing new thought, postmoderns have reestablished old thought, that syncretism, animism and tribalism are now playing havoc on the order of society and that "starting with the Greeks" is not only not a solution but part of the problem

File: IMG_2289.gif (796KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 500x500px

>>9759753
I don't know if I actually care or not.

File: quote-when-you-invent-the-ship-you-also-invent-the-shipwreck-when-you-invent-the-plane-you-also-invent-paul-virilio-275485.jpg (66KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 850x400px

>>9760114
you want to read virilio among others for sure if you haven't yet

glhf

File: IMG_2290.gif (634KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 443x332px

>>9760168
Cool I'll check it out
>among others
Whom?

File: IMG_2291.jpg (283KB, 500x587px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 500x587px

Bump for once

File: Postmodernism,_or_the_Cultural_Logic_of_Late_Capitalism.jpg (23KB, 257x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 257x400px

>>9760175
for general problems concerning technology and postmodernity? i mean it's not a short list, and i'm always sort of nervous about suggesting reading lists on /lit/.

first of all, it's a safe assumption that all of the Big Guys you hear about are worth at least some of your time. the Big Guys are Big because they have depth + breadth. for technology and modernity you want to digest marx and heidegger both to some degree. hegel also ofc. nietzsche always. there's a shitload of continental theory to wade through but some familiarity with those guys is going to if not give you all the answers you are looking for directly at least some sense of what other guys or areas you will be interested in.

i will shill *hard* for deleuze also. hard hard. marshall mcluhan i like a whole lot. land at some point i suppose. kind of depends on where you are. reading marx won't turn you into an sjw. i obsess mightily over capital but it wasn't always so and i hope it won't always be either.

but i mean if you brush up on your hegel, marx, heidegger, freud and nietzsche you'll be in a good way to turn over more stuff.

pic rel is good. there's tons of this shit & again, it depends on what kind of stuff really blows your hair back: economics? culture? technology? b/c it's all connected. personally i love pretty much all of it, so i'm ok with wasting my life thinking about it. it only gets more interesting over time. scary also. but theory is way way cool imho & worth it in the end.

hope that helps? if there's a more specific thing you're into i might be able to recommend something to go with it.

File: IMG_2292.gif (695KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 320x240px

>>9760572
Thank you really for such a reply; I should have noted that I'm familiar with Nietzsche and I actually love Deleuze as well (have not read anti-oedipus though); I spent a lot of time with the continental critical theorists. Marshall McLuhan should be essential desu. I'm interested in something current though you know? Like the Neoreactionaries are to me going in the wrong direction. Who is seeking to repair Modernity and not to explain it? Maybe I should read anti-oedipus but it seems to couched in 60's freak culture. I honestly feel like if I want to read about this I will be forced to write it myself; but I'm a mechanic and work all the time. Sorry for blogposting; have you read Deleuze's book on masochism? Also I'm curious if all this has made its way into fiction ever.

>>9759456
>Is the problem with Postmodernity that it represents
it doesn't

File: IMG_2293.gif (1000KB, 500x308px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 500x308px

>>9760626
Pls explain

File: C0PEJcpUoAAnBQX.jpg-large.jpg (307KB, 1320x1076px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1320x1076px

>>9760624
my pleasure

>haven't read anti-oedipus
bro
run don't walk
AO is insanely good
it is couched in the 60s but deleuze is god-tier & everything he writes is incredible, esp C&S

>Marshall McLuhan should be essential desu
no dignity. mm that dude, pic rel
it was actually /lit/ that helped me to realize this
/lit/ is great like that
>mcluhan: art should be there for the training of perception and judgment
i unironically love this man to frightful degrees

>I honestly feel like if I want to read about this I will be forced to write it myself;
maybe you should write something! it's all about machines...

>Like the Neoreactionaries are to me going in the wrong direction. Who is seeking to repair Modernity and not to explain it?
i hear you on this. i think i understand NRx but i'm more on the fix-via-explanation side of things rather than the fix-via-ideology side of things. ideology is always the thing which must be resisted b/c that is what helps us think and not be imprisoned by our own aesthetic fantasies &c

fixing things > making things worse because reasons
& learning is part of fixing
>critical engineering fy

https://criticalengineering.org

>Sorry for blogposting
i will not accept this apology, i've done far worse

>have you read Deleuze's book on masochism
not yet. i'm trying to soak that stuff in through every pore atm tho. will get to it eventually no question tho

>Also I'm curious if all this has made its way into fiction ever
really not sure. no end of good films tho
>just re-watched Terminator 2 yesterday (old model Oedipal T-800 tech vs new model Acceleration T-1000 tech, so good), will re-watch Matrix again soon

so good

>>9760635
postmodernity attempted to divorce from the politics of representation that advanced modernism (see cubism, for example)

>>9760669
*diggity, not dignity, autocorrect y u do this

"Modernity" never happened, let alone "postmodernity".

>>9760669
Okay it's decided my next book is anti-oedipus..it has been a long time coming.
>critical engineering
Thanks for this.
>no end of good films
Check out "Safe" by Todd Haynes if you haven't.

That pic is sensory in uncomfortable ways.

>>9760671
how do you get rid of representation?

>>9759456
>Is the problem with Postmodernity that it represents a degeneration of Modernity? I have been toying with the idea that postmodern thought represents a recursion of premodern thinking, an attempt to retrace our steps and find a path back towards some alternative present; an essential component to postmodernism is the technology of history (printing, statistical modeling, etc. a kind of time travel) Is postmodern in some essential way conservative? Is there some literature which corresponds to this idea of mine? What do you guys think?
I think you need more of a grounding in how postmodernism is actually discussed before you can start answering those big questions of yours. I would check out the postmodern condition by Lyotard especially and perhaps postmodernism by Frederic Jameson and maybe simulacra by Baudrilliard. Then of course some reactions to those, especially reactions to Lyotard.

File: IMG_2294.gif (246KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 500x366px

>>9760686
>hahah you plebs don't even realize you're talking about something that doesn't exist because I say so.

File: Marshall_McLuhan.png (371KB, 1000x523px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1000x523px

>>9760688
going to have to watch safe i guess

check out MM dropping the truth-bombs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

bugs & hotfixes in the total environment to be fixed v carefully

good luck anon
maybe write that book too
probably going to be interesting

>>9760702
You are correct of course and i appreciate your recommendations, too.

>>9760707
>acting like a word that encompasses everything from Borges to Lyotard has any meaning
Postmodernism is barely philosophy. It's buzzword-thinking for the Internet age.

>>9760719
Ah fuck I love guys like that, prophetic technocrats like Oppenheimer, McLuhan and William S Burroughs. I'll admit what I'd like to see is a revival of Modernity a "New Modernism" rather than a post-Modernism.

File: IMG_2295.gif (487KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 500x281px

>>9760737
>Buzzword thinking for the internet age
What age do you think you're living in, friend?

File: Accelerate-cover.jpg (58KB, 320x487px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 320x487px

>>9760743
me too anon. mcluhan especially tho. no cynicism there, a guy who really could grasp that there was still a thing called reality in spite of all the media. the simulacrum did not work on him. love that guy & understanding media is an outstanding book

http://robynbacken.com/text/nw_research.pdf

imho what comes after postmodernism is acceleration/cybernetics but that's a whole other thing
>fun to think about tho

pic rel for more on that but if you have time take the scenic tour and work your way through all things modern/postmodern first
>then join the land threads and meme about hyperstition with everyone else

or enjoy the eerie prophetic brilliance of the wachowskis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4

>>9760768
Ha! I was planning to do a bit of homework so I could meme it up in nick land threads. I like to cut of your jib. Also
>brb going to read & watch movies for a few weeks

>>9760778
The cut of. But "I like to cut off your jib" sounds good too. Cheers anon. Maybe I'll try to work autocorrect into the cut up method while I'm at it.

>>9760669
are you a student?

Im always interested in how the actually well read ones on /lit/ find their diverse readings for a sbject.
Do you just keep following the train as you get deeper and deeper?

File: 1500054795976.jpg (69KB, 648x435px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 648x435px

>>9760778
>>9760786
kek i love it
see you on level 2 my man

>>9760791
not a student, graduated not all that long ago
>from the wrong goddamn department
>and with the wrong goddamn undergraduate degree
>and then with the wrong goddamn master's degree to compound the goddamn retardedness
>mfw

muh tru luv was & remains & always shall remain continental philosoraptory
it only seems to get more interesting as time goes on

pic rel basically
except substitute a hilariously decadent slob for the muscular greek ideal
and the horses look nothing at all like horses
so basically just one obsession through bat country

these days i feel as though the picture is starting to coalesce tho and i mainly am learning to repeat myself in less fuckface ways & means

>metaphysics > politics
>metaphysics > aesthetics > politics
>/lit/ > alles

>>9759456
Post-modernity is post-coital modernity

>>9760812
you stoned bro?

Post-modernists was just a bunch of French communists trying their hardest to deny reality so they wouldn't have to admit they were wrong about Stalin.

There is nothing much to discuss.

>>9760624
You don't repair modernity. That's an egregious thing to say. You ride it. And yes, in the meantime you try to make sense of it.
(This is NOT an endorsement of Evola. Dear God. You don't ride modernity that way.)

>>9760874
sober as a judge, alas

these days i prefer whiskey but it's too early for that
>not too early tho

mostly just getting rinsed out by deleuze, feels good

I am completely fascinated by technology, modernity, and many of the questions you guys are talking about in this thread. Yet, I know nothing and have no actual knowledge on them.

Where should I start? What field is this even? Is it continental philosophy and theory?

>>9760893
>you don't repair a car you ride it
Why?

>>9760910
I recommend this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BH4qD5Fzyjk

>>9760916
You don't have the tools. The tools don't even exist in fact.
And the car is still moving.

File: tarnas_passion.jpg (630KB, 1477x2246px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1477x2246px

>>9760910
having shilled this book 20 different times i will perhaps try some reverse psychology and shill it using the back cover. perhaps this will work. a very nice intro to lots of other stuff, though it's ofc not about tech & modernity specifically

for technology/modernity three guys worth thinking about are hegel/marx/heidegger. phenomenology of spirit, capital, being & time. read & digest those & feel the earth breaking open beneath your feet
>muh Being

also, oswald spengler did nothing wrong & decline of the west kicks ass

>>9760926
didnt really answer my question, but thank you
i will watch

>>9760940
this is a great book for seeing stuff that you find interesting and then diving down the rabbit hole of that stuff. highly recommend also

you wanna recommend some more stuff girardfag? you got good taste

>>9760940
How can I get into Heidegger? I feel a bit apprehensive tackling him. Maybe there's no reason for that, but I don't feel like tackling him directly would help much.
And I pretty much gave up on Hegel... At least on a direct reading.

>also, oswald spengler did nothing wrong & decline of the west kicks ass
my dood!
I find him pretty fundamental, as much as Baudrillard at least. If you want to make sense of our contemporary world and "postmodernity" in general he is such an eye-opener.

>>9760935
>don't have the tools
Then what was it built with yah dingus?

>>9760974
Do you fix a car with a car-factory assemblage robot?

>>9760979
A robot produces hundreds of cars in a day but the techniques it uses are self-same to the mechanic repairing the car and the tools are the same, but I see your point, one must marshal all of the social forces to mass repair such a massive machine, so then, what choice do we have, must we become warlords, prophets? Choosing not to choose is hollow.

In order for the deus ex machina to work we must trick God into the machine, what did mankind do to trick god into incarnation? He didn't do it immediately, but after a long time I suppose, I think it is said to save us from our sins, so we had to sin in order for him to incarnate? How to convince god into the machine? That's all I can say for now see you in court.

File: 51dLlxET1qL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (55KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 333x499px

>>9760959
fucking *finally*

i swear i've posted that book dozens of times and literally this is the first time anyone has ever fucking noticed it & given a response
>cosmos & psyche is not as good. interesting. but wonky. anyways

>you wanna recommend some more stuff girardfag?
why yes, yes i do. this could literally take all day but how about just some surefire stuff that always holds up well:

Tarnas, Passion
>ok you said that

Spengler, DoTW
>you said that too numbnuts

Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence
>must-read cultural history. good stuff

Zimmerman, Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity
>aka how 2 into heidegger. struggling with heidegger? go directly to this, do not pass go, do not collect $200
>inb4 (((zimmerman)))
>tfw first time using triple brackets
>and i feel inestimably stupider having done this
>will not do again

Hegel & Deleuze, Together Again for the First Time
>maybe b/c i just read it but hegel/deleuze/badiou &c is where it's at. good essays
>clayton crockett is good too for deleuze/badiou

Hobsbawm, Age of Capital
>inb4 kys marxcuck
>it is the best history of the 19C industrial revolution there is. before you can demarxify - and you must demarxify in the 20C - you must first fully marxify via the 19C
>so you too can be hopelessly bewildered?
>yes, that's right
>ok just checking

Graeber, Debt, the First 5,000 years
>more economics?
>ok, fine

Sarup, Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism

i mean of course the general process is, find a guy you like, read absolutely everything by that guy, discover another guy that guy likes, repeat ad nauseam ad infinitum. i like a lot of guys. but before philosophy made sense there was a lot of history, which was imho mainly economic history, so in2 marx that way. but staying w/marx forever is as retarded as anything else. find your guys & just obsess over them i guess. whoever they are

in the end everything connects on planet meme.

>>9760968
>how can i get into heidegger
see above
>also high-five mia familia spengler rules
>also baudrillard ofc

>>9761073
Do you have the Nick Land Reader link?

>>9761117
these are the links but they appear to be stalling

https://u.nya.is/oauzos.pdf
https://u.nya.is/ajccaw.epub

>>9761073
this is impressive.
stay on /lit/ please

more rec would be greatly appreciated
>even though they will probably just sit in my bookmark list for the next 6 months until i get through my already substantial reading list

also do you use secondary sources for most philosophers? in conjunction? after reading? before reading?

File: 1498309644707.jpg (1MB, 2800x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2800x1600px

>more rec would be greatly appreciated
then sir you shall have it. more stuff for history/philosophy of tech & modernity and so on:

Marx, works
Heidegger, works
Deleuze, works
Baudrillard, works
Virilio, works
>others i am forgetting

McLuhan, Understanding Media & Gutenberg Galaxy
Giedion, Mechanization Takes Command
Chardin, the Phenomenon of Man
Mumford, Technics & Civilization
Ellul, the Technological Society
Land, Fanged Noumena
Simondon, Mode of Existence of Technical Objects
Althusser, Reproduction of Capital
&c
&c

Links:

Giedion:
http://biopolitics.kom.uni.st/Siegfried%20Giedion/Mechanization%20Takes%20Command_%20A%20Contribution%20to%20Anonymous%20History%20(143)/Mechanization%20Takes%20Command_%20A%20Contributio%20-%20Siegfried%20Giedion.pdf

Chardin:
https://archive.org/stream/ThePhenomenonOfMan/phenomenon-of-man-pierre-teilhard-de-chardin_djvu.txt

Ellul:
https://monoskop.org/images/5/55/Ellul_Jacques_The_Technological_Society.pdf

Land:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/406213/42bdb859549f609953a0ca61aca0bee3.pdf

Lewis:
https://monoskop.org/images/f/fa/Mumford_Lewis_Technics_and_Civilization.pdf

Althusser:
https://libcom.org/files/louis-althusser-on-the-reproduction-of-capitalism.compressed.pdf

So there you go. How's that? Many diving boards for plunging into the technonomic weirdness. Much more besides this, but all of this is cool. I don't recommend plunging in the way I did, because you will later on struggle with de-plunging yourself and trying to reassemble the fragments of your exploded head, put your thoughts in order, sort yourself out, clean room &c. It is better to start with - and, arguably, return to - the Greeks.
>the good, the beautiful, and the true > capitalism

But ultimately it does all make sense, if you're prepared to absorb enough steamrollers to the head. Capitalism unites everything and we wind up being chased by what we have unleashed on the world in the form of modernity, economics & tech. If only it weren't so darn interesting. One big beautiful meme city to meme in.

>also do you use secondary sources for most philosophers? in conjunction? after reading? before reading?
when required. after a while the jargon doesn't seem like jargon anymore. everybody reads & references the same guys. secondary sources are ok but in general you want the primary guys as much as you can (until, sadly, they die). then secondaries.

in general go to the source as much as possible, imho.

All my friends are either completely obsessed with technology and modernity or nature and getting away outside and such. A lot of overlap between those groups also.
Honestly the most interesting stuff going on rn in philosophy

>>9761336
>Land
sorry but I can't take you seriously anymore

>>9761336
do you think that if you dive deep into this stuff a general knowledge of science, math, engineering, and computer science is important?

File: 1498233280745.jpg (301KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1920x1080px

>>9761372
my interest in land is not the best reason to not take me seriously. that would be b/c i am obviously read nearly to the point of being virtually incomprehensible on some of these threads. which is a bad sign.

land is a thing i am trying to work my way through. i'm more into deleuze now but acceleration scares the shit out of me. cyberneticization just makes too much sense. so in some sense you gotta dance w/the one that brung you & land was the guy for me after baudrillard & heidegger. now it's deleuze - again, b/c of land. but cybernetics &c tho. that shit is *way* too interesting - and unsettling - for me to let go of. in terms of politics? whomp, acceleration. it's totalizing, but to me it makes sense. for you it may be different. that's ok tho. in the grand scheme of things i am profoundly, spectacularly unimportant. and mainly trying to divest myself of the 99% of me which is straight psychic gas so that the remaining 1% can screw his pants on in the morning and go to work and meme productively with all the other memers of society, quietly and anonymously. pet the occasional kitten and smell the occasional flower.

anyways glhf

>>9761382
>do you think that if you dive deep into this stuff a general knowledge of science, math, engineering, and computer science is important?

w/o a doubt. i have a weekly conversation with a compsci buddy of mine about this (he also detests land, btw). even spengler says, fuck philosophy, study engineering. he's right about that. machines are deleuze's thing as well, along with other stuff. being a useless continental twerp is definitely not as cool as being good with STEM & all the rest if you can do it at the same time. the continental/analytic split is the result of technology and much else.

so yes, of course, absolutely, being able to actually know the tech stuff is good. or the finance stuff. if you can squeeze it into your life, i would say. definitely.

i mean, you clearly don't need it in advance (case in point: me). but if you can combine theory with more hard-science stuff? for sure, i'm sure you'll get to all kinds of cool conclusions. that's just my feeling.

so in advance? not required. but would it make it all more interesting for you (and others, if you wrote something)? absolutely.

>>9761457
Is it acceleration to get a job as a prison guard, using drugs to manipulate the tensions within the population and secure favor & influence to the point where you lead an armed prison break? I really wish that Deleuze wrote more about prisons. That essay containing the letters from a prisoner was lyrical to an extreme. I think it was in desert islands or whatever it's called.

>>9761457
I feel kinda the same way. However I didn't study STEM in school in favor of philosophy. Were you able to study STEM in your free time? I just feel like engineering and math are some subjects that are just so hard to truly study correctly outside of a school.
Basically, how do I learn STEM shit if I dont in school. Honestly I just want to learn and read everything, but know its impossible and I have to make a choice and its driving me crazy and second guess every decision I make

>>9760995
>Choosing not to choose is hollow.

The point is that you don't have a choice.
These social forces you recognize compose the entirety of World History. You can imagine it as a grand theatrical play.
World History runs its own *cybernetic* process, while in the background the techonomic layer runs also. The two spiral parallel to each other. You're just another character in this grand play. And you can't untangle this spiral. Sorry.
At best you can try to become a primary character in this play. But don't expect to be the writer. Good luck.

File: IMG_2297.jpg (41KB, 500x308px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x308px

>>9761524

>>9761073
thanks for the recomendations girardfriend.
I've stumbled into Barzun once and put it on my list, if you're recomending it it's probably a good idea to push to the top of my list.

Always a pleasure when you're present in a thread anyway.

File: Ernst_Juenger_inSG.jpg (12KB, 220x323px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x323px

>>9761484
>is it acceleration

i was thinking the other day about this: three great philosophers (hegel, nietzsche, and deleuze) and three great popularizers of those philosophies who popularize them in a way by a kind of reversal (marx, the fascists & potentially heidegger, and land). in each case there is a sort of a pattern where a too-literal political interpretation of a metaphysical idea turns that idea into a deadly and oversimplified meme. in all three cases the results are brutal for mass society. totalitarian communism sucks. totalitarian fascism sucks. totalitarian acceleration is beginning to suck and will suck more. this is an incomplete thesis.

so my answer to that question is, i'm really not sure. here's what i like - *love*
>love love
about deleuze: he describes thought, difference, all of this in ways that gently jailbreak you out of mimetics. it's said that he was politically quietist and this i think makes sense to me. his dazzling model of thought gives you these conceptual tools to ask yourself what the fuck you really are doing before you rush off and do it immediately Because Reasons. and that is ultimately my thing, or one of my things: philosophy as escape from excessive reasons (that lead to bad decisions.)
>tho sometimes hilarious stories, it's true

>prisons
there is this:
>The day is coming when not one prison guard will be able to beat a prisoner without being publicly denounced a day or month later by his victim or a witness, in the very city where it has taken place. Former prisoners, and current prisoners alike, have ceased to be afraid and no longer feel ashamed.
Reminds me of the United Airlines footage. This seems to have been in general more Foucault's project than Deleuze's.

>>9761503
I don't know anyone who studies STEM in their free time, but in hindsight I would have studied something technical and then found time for theory on the side. Otherwise it seems as though it becomes necessary to make the theory pay for itself and all too frequently the way that this happens is through a very subtle form of tyranny of good intentions, which is exactly the stuff Peterson says has destroyed the humanities. I tend to agree with him, but it's a terrible dilemma, with no end of hideous consequences. It's why I like RG for literature: the literature stays about that which is properly universal in literature - no post-structuralism, none of this. And that I think goes hand in glove with a nice technical degree to round it off, for lots of reasons.

To my mind that's what separates the meme intellectuals from people who are really worth reading: they're just constantly trigged all the time and grinding ideological axes. Is this my white cis- het privilege talking? No doubt it is in part. But after 2016 metaphysics > politics for me, now and forever. I have set all that shit on fire and it stays burned.

Philosophy's not going anywhere but STEM is imho a better look. Or, ask what Ernst Junger would do. Then do that.

File: 617isUthmoL.jpg (91KB, 656x1000px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 656x1000px

>>9761576
my pleasure homeslice, barzun is dope & enjoy the read

thx for letting me go bananas up in here once again

will shill one more good one at ye

>>9761581
Authoritarian acceleration:
I've thought a bit about this; if terror is the revolutionary meme, and state's own a monopoly on terror, is the state a revolution in progress? Maybe I'm just chanelling Robespierre. Fuck it I love it, the blood, the guts, the shit, the piss, the knowing glare of a skank, acts of unrepentant cowardice all I can say anymore is fucking MORE!

File: 70fe89660101f45630f281a7c6629b79.jpg (944KB, 1635x2025px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1635x2025px

>>9761594
well that's one way i guess

would kind of be nice to not require an orgy of blood and feces tho
>sometimes, it's true, you gotta shake your sillies out w/dionysus

but in my ideal world most disputes would be resolved by a hesse-style glass bead game

or, failing that, a conversation about who has the most handsome legs
>at least until the king arrives
>b/c it's clearly the king who has the finest legs
>it's always the king
>why is it always the king?
>ah well
>back to the countryside until next time seigneurs

>>9759456
>I have been toying with the idea that postmodern thought represents a recursion of premodern thinking, an attempt to retrace our steps and find a path back towards some alternative present

Correct. The conclusion then is that postmodernism is the solution to the degeneration present in Modernity.

>>9760114
Postmodernity can still reproduce modernism, but this is not necessarily because of postmodernism. Postmodernism, to me, is the reading of postmodernity, which involves a history, i.e. the canon. But the conditions of postmodernity don't necessarily allow this -- ephemeral media is not a canon, nor is it based on the canon. It is not cohesive as it relies on signs in the context of other signs in the context of other signs, etc. Remodernism or retromodernism is a thing in the art world retracing some old strategies to approaching art, so to exhaust their possibilities. The art world though is 'literate', as is the French post-structuralist linguistic critiques from the likes of Derrida, and the historical approach of Foucault. Who is the consumer of the revolution? Not the pseudo-literate it seems -- we've seen the attempts to sell diversity to the pseudo-literate. White nationalism and transactivism are two sides of the same problem -- the abandonment of literacy, of reading history, of understanding, of being a 'postmodernist' in the time of postmodernity.

>>9760700
Technology does it apparently, per Baudrillard.

>>9760768
>imho what comes after postmodernism is acceleration/cybernetics but that's a whole other thing

Cybernetics is a part of postmodern thought to me. Especially Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind, where he talks of the ability of the human mind to wreck its environment. The reharmonising of human life with environment is a call of postmodernism, hence we see environmental movements and indigenous rights being codified by the UN in the 80s and 90s. But this time is really part of the 'contemporary' which I read as a little different to postmodernism and coincides with increased digitisation.

I like the idea of acceleration being a post-postmodern, or post-contemporary. Speculative realism seems to be what comes next, the way Land aligns what he has read to produce something else entirely, and this too can become 'true' by way of hyperstition. You see it in post-grad writing, the application of advanced though to everyday experience. A lot of this stuff gets posted on newrealpeerreview to be made fun of but these people aren't writing this shit for the pseudo-literate. It's just the next stage of literacy, being able to think in flexible ways with the poetry of academic speak; making new words out of Greek roots. A way of breaking through bourgeois concepts of experience, like the French theory before them, and the Surrealists before them.

>>9761946
Also this is from a past Land thread:
>read Habermas. epistemology is social theory not yet conscious of itself.

>>9761946
Another also: cybernetics leads to this
http://www.biosemiotics.org/biosemiotics-introduction/

>>9760175
Just "who", son. "Whom" is for the accusative case.

>>9761581
Girard, what do you mean by RG for literature? I'm new to /lit/ , sorry.
Also just wanted to say I don't post much but I have been following this thread because of you and I appreciate the recommendations. Thanks

>>9760940
jesus christ these review blurbs make it sound like the book was passed down from heaven by the hand of god himself

File: 703133.jpg (148KB, 1200x718px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1200x718px

>>9761946
>biosemiotics
i'm passingly familiar with this from reading a little about von uexküll and the umwelt. was when i was very into phenomenology. def interesting stuff and it's true, if anything is likely to monkey up nick land's plans for Total Cybernetic Domination it may well be that kind of stuff. maybe cybernetics are just easier to think b/c all the marxist stuff
>and no science background

>spec-real
this stuff too, although holy hannah does it ever get dark. it is constructive darkness tho. i'm okay with darkness but seriously, how awesome is deleuze? for a while i was starting to get really into this stuff b/c the darkness seemed where it was at but now i'm just starting to appreciate how much deleuze has going on still for things that live. i don't know what they are. but whatever it is he's got it in spades

life seems almost good again with deleuze. that's kind of incredible. i like this feel

will spread the word about sc hickman here for more in this vein if you guys are into that

>What is looking back at us, knower and known – is the very truth of our own inhuman, unnatural excess: the being of our Being as monstrous Other, as the Outside from which we’ve been barred for far too long. As Thacker puts it: “It is not surprising, then, that whereas the magic circle evokes vaguely anthropoid creatures (demons, ghosts, the dead), the magic site creeps forth with entities that are neither animate nor inanimate, neither organic nor inorganic, neither material nor ideal.

"fun" stuff in the Outer Darkness

https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/lovecraft-and-the-great-outside/

>>9762285
RG = rene girard

>Also just wanted to say I don't post much but I have been following this thread because of you and I appreciate the recommendations. Thanks

that's very kind anon, thank you. i got called an attention whore in one of the other threads today and i was legit triggered about it!

>i also said i would take a break from /lit/ for a bit
>i lied
>fufufu
>that anon may have been right tho. nobody likes a blabbermouth
>tfw genuinely don't want to come across as an attention whore
>shit's just interesting yo

>>9762312
i mean it's a pretty good book. it's not being & time or w/evs but for an intro it's pretty satisfying & easy to read

File: 2a7dd5c491f4951d9c9837ce50626652--enjoy-the-silence-depeche-mode-quotes.jpg (55KB, 628x628px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 628x628px

>>9761951
>epistemology is social theory not yet conscious of itself.

this is a neat concept too. i'm not well-read w/habermas but from what i understand cybernetics are a problem for him b/c his valorizing of communications ultimately depends (as i understand it) from a sense in which communication is never really perfectly transparent on account of the inevitable vagaries of language itself
>hence the need for a lot of professional german intellectuals equipped with dialectic, for good and for ill

the idea of a cybernetic code and so on skews with this though, as does anything else that might be called a philosophy beyond the linguistic turn (such as deleuze's, or land's, or various others'). this might be worrisome to many others but at the same time all of the idpol stuff that drives me insane proceeds ultimately from correlationism that spec-real guys are out to destroy

i guess i fall somewhere uncomfortable in the middle with that, wanting to express things but knowing language & art are plastic as all hell

a truly socially conscious & evolving social theory would be good, if that's what that sentence is implying (is it?). to me it looks and feels like the matrix but only because i'm crusty & miserable sometimes from all the baudrillard & land readings and it's safe and easy to assume the worst
>but deleuze doesn't like that pessimistic bullshit

hnng silence
hnng time-images

>>9759456
>insinuating there's a problem with post-modernity

>>9762423
can you give me a brief overview of your education? how do you read all this stuff?

I truly just want to know a lot and am very impressed by you.

>>9760114
In the latter part of your post you describe a return to the past, or myths, which I assume is Jungian in origin, but you view it detrimentally instead of positively, why?

File: IMG_2303.gif (763KB, 612x756px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 612x756px

>>9762762
Freud, not Jung; specifically, the "return of the repressed" but as Jung commented "what you resist will persist."
Like I said initially, I believe that premodern paradigms continued to operate in the interstices of Modernity, since the Grand Narratives were organized around power structures and concentrations of wealth i.e. Urban centers, academia, etc. In the flyover states, in the ghettos, in the homes of the underclasses; the hallmarks of modernity were going unnoticed, so when representation became metastatic, diffuse with new technology, instead of a proliferation of the Modern we saw a resurfacing of all the vestigial or undesirable modes of thought which Modernity had believed were done away with, but were only in fact being repressed. In this way, Modernity entered a crisis. My ideas are not polished yet but I hope to develop them further.

File: IMG_2304.gif (255KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 500x376px

>>9763369
I want to undermine the concept of the noble savage and depict universal diverse representation as problematic as it is, like in the final act of Germinal by Zola; however I think this process is necessary and revolutionary, the collective unconscious must be made conscious. This is the age of the New Flesh.

Anyone else watch Ghost in the Shell?

I realized after watching it that it's kind of reactionary.

In the end of the movie the main character says that "It doesn't matter what happens in the future, because humanity is our virtue."

Which sounds like something you would say in order to keep some semblance of safe categorization, when you live in a postmodern world where the annihilation of identity by cybernetics and technicity in general is happening.

File: IMG_2306.gif (31KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x500px

>>9763383
"Humanity is our virtue" reminds me of "more human than human"; cybernetics is to me an augmented resurgence of the deathwish which emerged during the 20th century, manifested by the atrocities of war, glowing in the liminal eye of our t.v.s, quickly sunk into the unconscious and remaining their intact, now returning in the barely recognizable form of transhumanist dehumanizations, living death, zombie apocalypses, etc.

>>9763396
Exactly.

File: IMG_2307.gif (945KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 245x245px

>>9763410
I don't think this is a "bad thing", however, it seems to me the return of the repressed is a necessary process, and that the deathwish has been changed for the better in fact, through the dream work of the totality of culture. This is why I think acceleration is so important, we are in the midst of an evolutionary process and nothing should be excluded, it is all necessary. Consumer culture is necessary, the consumer is the new proletarian, producing by consuming. Idk I'm rambling now :)

File: 1491504916036.jpg (464KB, 919x893px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 919x893px

>>9762642
>can you give me a brief overview of your education?
clusterfuck, fills me with anger & disappointment

>how do you read all this stuff?
obsessive interest in religion, sex, death, money & anxiety. i just don't care about the other stuff. i do what i have to mainly in order to maximize time for this. the rest doesn't matter to me

>I truly just want to know a lot
guaranteed you will. guaranteed. it will happen whether you want it to or not! just keep reading what you're interested in. when i started out all i wanted to do was write a pulp fantasy or SF story. but there's a point beyond which the theory no longer seems like pointless wanking
>and this is a tricky one b/c you will encounter strong resistance from people who will try and smack you down out of straight ignorance and fear
>but those who do this are full of shit and they know it
>so one must be tactful
>and consistent
>and polite
>and not lose one's cool
>and not be an alcoholic
>&c &c

it's honestly all about attitude & disposition. don't be cynical, trust the butterflies in your stomach, read the stuff that really interests you and you will eventually realize that you *always already knew this stuff.*
>inb4 hegel
all that was missing was a couple of concepts (the jargon) required to express it: metaphysics of production, objet a, de/reterritorialization, logical fallacies, w/ev it is
>and then the real stunner is when you find out that everybody else always-already knew it too
>but of course they weren't going to *tell* you this, since it always seemed so perfectly obvious
>but if it was so obvious why didn't they say so? why didn't they just *tell* you it was like that? and if they knew then why the fuck do they keep doing the same things?
>rargh

it's like that, in my experience. the big philosophy stuff just provides concepts for describing that which is so stunningly obvious it is assumed to be Just Like That. except it isn't.
>demolition of common sense and its replacement by mystification and aporia that will lead to something else other than the repetition of more of the same Because Reasons ftw
>and plato says education is remembering
>and also *idpol is garbage,* metaphysics > politics
>rant over

>>9763383
>gits
such a great film/story, shirow is a genius

>In the end of the movie the main character says that "It doesn't matter what happens in the future, because humanity is our virtue."
such a good line. ofc b/c virtue exists it really *does* matter what happens
>but politics yo

>Which sounds like something you would say in order to keep some semblance of safe categorization, when you live in a postmodern world where the annihilation of identity by cybernetics and technicity in general is happening
yup. pic rel

identity is a problem. esp for neoliberal hacks, /pol/tards, narcissists, consumption-crazed werewolves & all the rest. suckas don't read

>>9763396
beautiful winrar

>>9763422
>the consumer is the new proletarian, producing by consuming
109% correct

File: IMG_2309.png (298KB, 650x225px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 650x225px

>>9763511
Your posts are as ever effervescent and an asset
questions:
.do you meditate? how do you meditate?
.ever read any Jodorowsky comics?

>so one must be tactful
>and consistent
>and polite
>and not lose one's cool
>and not be an alcoholic
>&c &c
^good advice

>the consumer is the new proletarian, producing by consuming
Is this what they meant by "desiring machines"?

>>9763511
you could probably write a book in prose like this and people would eat it up ironically.

File: 4282.jpg (53KB, 260x400px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 260x400px

>>9763532
thx
>genuinely sincerely *not* trying to be That Guy
>not trying to x-pill anyone
>not all/any of that shit
>you get the idea

>do you meditate?
yes. sporadically and in a stupid & undisciplined manner. and wondering whenever i do why i am so fucking stupid not to do this more often. mindfulness a thing

>how do you meditate?
join a sangha, count breaths. 10 minutes/a day. bare bones

>advice
pic rel was the first philosophy book i read. then nietzsche showed up, then baudrillard, and lots of other guys. really didn't start to get into philosophy all that long ago. it's only been a couple of years. now i see deleuze, baudrillard, nn taleb, others saying, hey, you know the stoics really weren't so bad
>stoics = greek buddhists
>not such a bad combination
>also laozi & confucius, the gentleman must have virtue
>philosophy wasted on slobs
>virtue a thing

>Is this what they meant by "desiring machines"?
yep. partly anyways. D&G drop a nuclear bomb star-wars style into the Death Star which is Freudian/Lacanian Oedipal theatre. ska-boom. what if your unconscious is not a repressive triangle but wants to blast off in all directions? the real deal *is* fascism- the despot, the tyrant- but the tyrant *is deeply buried within.* this is why the whole Punch a Nazi thing is jaw-droppingly stupid. the calls are coming from inside the house. this is what connects to Nick Land and the Outside and 400 other guys. fascism, the war machine, *is* the most politically appropriate form of capitalism - but of course, everyone will say, hey, you just gotta do what you gotta do
>help me rene girard you're my only hope
>kek fuck you go to church first you shitbag
>damn RG that's harsh
>harsh but fair, girardfag. harsh but fair
>ok well we'll talk about that later i guess

desiring-machines are a thing. the spice must flow. but this is where it gets *really* interesting - all of the complaints about capitalism, that it works by malfunctioning, coming back stronger than before, all this - what it is *astonishingly* crazy about D&G is that they *reverse the polarity* - capitalism functions externally in the *same fucking way* that *you do internally.* the interior fascist is always mysteriously frustrated with the superabundance of demi-fascist consumer fun available to them all around on Planet Consumption. what holds this all together (tortuously, seductively, existentially, &c)? *IDENTITY,* which leads directly into identity *politics* - the same for both sides

TLP is right. it is a nation of narcissists. narcissism is the thing. It's also girard's thing: mimetic desire. lacan gets there too, hegel, all of this. except there is no neat and easy division between heroic working-class labourers (well, those few cool guys are still cool) b/c in the postmodern wilderness nobody can tell the difference anymore
>see baudrillard

we are desiring-machines running on matrix protocols that we *do not understand* because *if we did* the magic would be lost.

(cont'd)

File: gits-rise22.jpg (256KB, 834x610px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 834x610px

>>9763579
>desiring-machines
desiring-machines
>also desiring-machines

it's really worth thinking about. mechanosphere. far and away the most interesting thought i encountered this year. i had to sort my way through land first but w/ev. D&G are infinitely interesting now

>>9763539
>you could probably write a book in prose like this and people would eat it up ironically.

the hilarious thing about this is that i got here by trying to write something extra-polished and refined and deconstructive and so on and it made me so terminally blocked & thwarted that i consequently come on /lit/ and write these demented blogposts instead.

so thx i guess. something to think about, that's for sure. i really would like to write Total Pseud's Guides to various thinkers & ideas. i seem to be able to carry on conversations with a kind of inner gollum who is continually saying
>kys girardfag
as i do this

but honestly /lit/ is just such a cool place. eventually i will move on and get a blog but i have found the conversations here really enlightening and often anons recommend stuff i have never heard of

>or remind me not so be such an attention whore
>but i'm not an attention whore
>that's exactly what an attention whore would say
>tfw
>lacan_btfo_sphinx.jpeg

anyways. back to desiring-machines. because this is where shit really gets interesting. desiring-machines all trapped within a world of consumption which is itself one vast and ecumenical whole, a great network. this scene is must-watch

Network:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4

film and storytelling can do incredible things

File: 8854magnus--plessen.jpg (65KB, 450x336px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 450x336px

is there a writer/book that focuses on the politicization of perception/ 'Reality'?

i'm not really motivated by political reasons, man-made media are slowly filling out my (/our) perceptual horizon and i want to be prepared

File: IMG_2310.gif (959KB, 500x220px) Image search: [Google]

959KB, 500x220px

>>9763579>>9763593
Allow me some time to unpack and repurpose this. My first impression is:
Satisfaction killed the cat; curiosity brought it back (to be killed again and again and again)

File: maxresdefault.jpg (151KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1920x1080px

one last one.

so to me the Matrix could have and should have been a *much* better trilogy than it actually was. much better. two things were missing:

1) a *prequel.* *how* did the matrix come to be? they clumsily tried to shoehorn this in in the conversation between neo and the architect in part 2, but it seemed fairly obvious that the wachowskis were in way over their head. they knew that they were on to something and so they sort of cryptically alluded to it in those dumb conversations. but how the matrix came to be is basically *the* story of postwar western culture. it's what everyone talks about: adorno, baudrillard, deleuze, everyone. it's all wrapped up with technology and consumption, except of course IRL there was no alien presence: we did this to ourselves *voluntarily.* the backstory of the matrix is interesting - the "machine war" is basically the same event that james cameron (the terminator) and herbert (the butlerian jihad) all seem to sense is a kind of historical inevitability. makes you think. but b/c in the film it's all mythic prehistory the films wind up being these fantasy epics in the end when they might have been something much more subtle and consequently much more interesting. so a kind of alternate-matrix series of films that deal with this would be cool.

2) agent smith. they made him the antagonist of the film and that's cool. but as pic rel indicates he was actually a massively more interesting character than neo. he is, or might have been, properly *tragic.* what i would have wanted is a lot more about his development and character arc, his psychology, alienation (an infinity of other people who look just like him? this has my attention) and so on. neo is a Chosen One and does Chosen One things. smith is the real anomaly who wants out and is prepared to bring the whole thing down to make that happen. *that's* a fucking cool story. smith has all the best lines and has the best actor in the show. what he needed was some of the alan rickman magic from Robin Hood and it would have been game over for neo, just give us more smith!

Based Rickman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZhCCu-2gbw

anyways. matrix 2.0. my body is *wholly* ready

>>9763682
go for it my man. lacan that dude: repetition & pleasure. then deleuze: difference & repetition. a great adventure awaits

File: IMG_2311.jpg (54KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x320px

>>9763693
Buckminster Fuller wrote: automation frees the automatons.
Automation: a divine, superhuman-repetition; we look for ways to make the machines more like us when we have created something that is more like us than we are ourselves. Much to learn from the machines. I am a technobodisattva, I will stay in the matrix until all sentient life is freed from it; the most distinguishing feature of the captain is that he is the last to leave the sinking ship; capital the white whale, the embodiment of desire, kill the father fuck the mother. I am the killer on the road.

File: quote-world-war-iii-is-a-guerrilla-information-war-with-no-division-between-military-and-civilian-marshall-mcluhan-80-85-51.jpg (60KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 850x400px

>>9763717
>Buckminster Fuller wrote: automation frees the automatons.
he knew the deal

>Automation: a divine, superhuman-repetition; we look for ways to make the machines more like us when we have created something that is more like us than we are ourselves
victor frankenstein did nothing wrong

>much to learn from the machines
you got that right

> I am a technobodisattva, I will stay in the matrix until all sentient life is freed from it
my man

>the most distinguishing feature of the captain is that he is the last to leave the sinking ship
*nice.* of course, when the captain is ahab (or hitler) and tells everyone else, *you're not going anywhere until the job is complete* - right? heavy shit

>capital the white whale, the embodiment of desire, kill the father fuck the mother
ayup. it's a tragic death-trap w/no way out except some metaphysical 4d chess

>I am the killer on the road.
and you know what they say about meeting the buddha on the road

talk more about this shit anon you're on to a rocking-horse winner

parse this also
if i was not girardfag i would be mcluhanfag

>>9763693
The Matrix was nothing but a narcissistic escapist fantasy. There really was nothing interesting about it. You say Elrond had potential, but the simple fact is he lacked any internal logic to begin with. He's a villain for the sake of it, machine like when convenient, human-like when convenient. The fact he loosely represents nihilism doesn't mean anything, nothing is done with the character, he exists for the sake of a fight scene because that's what substitutes progress or logical development in bad films.

File: IMG_2312.jpg (325KB, 736x1346px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 736x1346px

>>9763731
I'm a bit drained, but metaphysical trump chess? I'm all over it
https://youtu.be/-pjQ0FNzkLQ
^a nice demystified way of life by WS Burroughs

I study Tarot cards, btw. Pic related is to me the symbol of this yuga.

File: sebastian-kowoll-charsv2webh.jpg (578KB, 1581x1920px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1581x1920px

>>9759456
The problem with post-modernity is that it is obscurantist meaninglessness with no purpose but that of a pretext for any purpose.

It respects the deconstructionist's, destroyer's bias more than the creators. Which is, as always, inherently destructive idea. Destroying is far easier than building.

post-modernists, much like commies, deserve the oven.

>>9763806
>destruction is easier than creation
Says someone who has never attempted or succesfully destroyed anything completely. Destruction is equally as simple and as difficult as creation. It is a task which requires care and attention to the logistical details it necessitates. Don't quickly grasp at the thought that first comes to your head, give your mind the time it requires to gestate and then speak your peace without unnecessary digression:

>>9763797
What?

>>9763822
Oklahoma bomber destroyed 628,000,000 million USD worth of stuff with less than 5000 dollars lol

lol

>>9763822
People are destructive by nature, this is patently untrue.

File: 416leC01c+L._SX358_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (35KB, 360x499px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 360x499px

>>9763766
good crikey i could not possibly disagree more

>the Matrix was nothing but a narcissistic escapist fantasy
postmodern consumer culture is nothing but a vast and interconnected series of narcissistic escapist fantasies

>there really was nothing interesting about it
lord ha'mercy

>Elrond/internal logic
nah. it was all there, they just didn't develop his arc. the story is a straight monomyth built around neo but it ran out of gas. like the joker in TDK, it's the villain that quietly does all the heavy lifting that makes the story more than spectacle. smith had everything he needed, they just built the story around more spectacle and keanu reeves moves
>whoa
>we went too far
>we know too much

>villain/machine/convenience
yes. like patrick bateman. or anton chigurh. or lots of others

>The fact he loosely represents nihilism doesn't mean anything, nothing is done with the character, he exists for the sake of a fight scene because that's what substitutes progress or logical development in bad films
you're making my point here. the character could have been much more. the films are flawed & could have been much much more

smith is, in a way, sort of like the T-1000 except he is *dissatisfied.* he's cut off from the future, he wants out. the T-1000 is a killer robot. Anton Chigurh in No Country is also a killer robot, although of course McCarthy is a god-tier genius writer and so his characters are way more than killer robots. the wachowskis are out for spectacle, i like spectacle too.

but. but but. really smart blockbusters are fucking teeeerrific. ledger's joker did this b/c nolan is a fucking tremendous director and ledger caught lighting in a bottle. hugo weaving could have done it. smith is a nick land fantasy to the nth degree. there's a whole lot more in that well. warrants i think a serious look back at that story. the matrix has a lot going on in it. it's a failed masterpiece & smith could have been a lot more interesting.

it was all there. that's all i'm saying. and i kind of want to maybe update that story to explicate these themes and ideas a little more clearly
>you know who else was a really good character? kefka in ff6. doomsday clown in baroque-steampunk-postapoc world ftfw
>t. unapologetic ff6 homer
>t. ultranerd

>>9763787
image fuggin' saved
clip fuggin' listened to
anon fuggin' high-fived
>do easy. how fast can you do it, and get it done
hnng
>also hnng
this is why i come to /lit/ anon, this is why, i can't get this shit anywhere else
anon is a fucking cool guy & we are bro-fisting this screen like a motherfucker

>metaphysical trump chess? I'm all over it
2016 wrecked my shit. migrant crisis + trump was my intro and outro from politics. i stay w/metaphysics now. that shit was all way too much

>tarot
mystical hyperstitional amor fati, why not. why the fuck not
>am i a man dreaming he is a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he is a man

check out carlos castaneda/active side of infinity

>>9763835
It sounds like he employed an efficient act of creativity to me. You see creation is as easy as that.

>>9763838
People breed by nature but it doesn't make them successful at doing so

File: IMG_2313.png (924KB, 1280x727px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 1280x727px

>>9763840
Carlos Castaneda's instructions on how to find your seat and sit are invaluable. Too bad the trolls are finding this thread I guess.

>is why i come to /lit/ anon, this is why, i can't get this shit anywhere else
anon is a fucking cool guy & we are bro-fisting this screen like a motherfucker
Y-you too

>>9763840
>postmodern consumer culture is nothing but a vast and interconnected series of narcissistic escapist fantasies
But few things lack subtlety as the Matrix does to so great an effect. I'd wager it was psychologically damaging to millions of people. It was the most philosophical thing most people will ever think to experience (despite only masquerading as such) and concludes with some half assed mysticism that amounts to little more than it's not what you do that matters but who you are inside, and that person is profoundly special despite again having no real qualities or qualifications. It's a dangerous film.
>>9763840
>yes. like patrick bateman. or anton chigurh. or lots of others
You're being too glib in sidestepping this point. The Matrix literally concludes with Neo entering the machine city and speaking to whatever amalgam authority rules it which dramatically yells at him like some emotionally unstable 10 year old girl. Keanu Reeves cooly responds, gets them to take the deal, and saves the world. This was their oppressor? They're more emotive human than Neo was throughout the entire film, more human. It's suggestive of the emptiest of rebellions, who rules you isn't substantiated or logical, just know that you are ruled and you'd be ever so cool if you thought yourself above that.

It was a stupid movie.

>>9763848
Literally what the fuck are you even trying to say.

>>9763866
Read back up the chain

>>9763834
Precisely. Just look here...

>>9763846
>It sounds like he employed an efficient act of creativity to me. You see creation is as easy as that.
Destruction is now creation. Meaningless sophistry of the lowest order meant to convince the unassuming and appeal to the uncritical, not offer solutions of any kind. This is the nature of post-modernist thought, to sound good and shun substance.

>>9763874
How is that postmodern?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (174KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x720px

>>9763840
one other factoid about the matrix: neo was originally going to be played by will smith.

casting reeves made it much more about mysticism & stuff. i'm absolutely fine with this ofc. casting WS would have made it funnier and less heavy. shit like that is just too interesting to think about

https://moviepilot.com/posts/2481780

>>9763860
>trolls

meh, it's okay. this is /lit/, bless this place. learning not to get trigged or take things too seriously is why it's so good. otherwise my own rectum would be so tightly wound up it would begin sucking in all light from the universe

>castaneda
i'll pick one from any number of quotes i have from this one.

>He insisted over and over that I had to forgive the people who had wronged me. From what he said, I formed the impression that he wanted me to confront my father with his finding and accuse him of indolence and neglect, and then, of course, forgive him. He failed to see that I didn't feel wronged at all. What he was asking me to do required an introspective nature that would make me respond to the barbs of psychological mistreatment once they were pointed out to me. I assured my uncle that I was going to think about it, but not at the moment, because at that very instant, my girlfriend, from the living room where she was waiting for me, was signaling me desperately to hurry up.

anyways.

>>9763862
>I'd wager it was psychologically damaging to millions of people
oh come on.

>mysticism/it's a dangerous film
i'm fine with arguing about this but this does not compute. it's not dangerous, it's flawed. even flawed films - such as this one - have their merits. was it perfect? of course not, that's what we're talking about. dangerous? yer talking reckless.

>it was a stupid movie.
i've already said that i agree with you on this. the second and third films go places that they didn't need to go b/c they ran out of gas and tried to wrap up in *exactly those scenes* and in *exactly those ways* the kinds of questions that they opened up pandora's box style in the first film and couldn't deliver on because the directors *hadn't thought it all the way through.* this is why i am obviously saying that what i would like to see is a re-matrix that looks at these very questions so that precisely those lapses into ideology and half-baked mysticism which you are now presently describing are not pointlessly repeated the next time around. because they are interesting and viewers are *smart* and they deserve high-quality spectacle.

McLuhan:
>Art as a radar environment takes on the function of indispensable perceptual training rather than the role of a privileged diet for the elite. While the arts as radar feedback provide a dynamic and changing corporate image, their purpose may be not to enable us to change but rather to maintain an even course toward permanent goals, even amidst the most disrupting innovations

>>9763693
you should write the sequels. i imagine something ingenious like that when i see matrix 2 and 3.
but sadly >>9763766 this guy is right in almost everything.
you live in your own matrix movie. kind of interesting with your discourse.

The Matrix movies are stupid, building up on them is utterly ridiculous.

What does /lit think will come after postmodernism? Is there a movement that is building in the works that will move us past/beyond postmodernism?

File: F8hIAON.png (475KB, 680x474px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 680x474px

>>9763916
>you should write the sequels

i'd blow it up from the ground floor and start all over again with smith as the hero who realizes that he's not human at all, which is why he's so fucked. might not even reveal the existence of the matrix itself until the end of part 1. but this is really just off the top of my head atm so don't quote me too heavily

>but sadly >>9763766 this guy is right in almost everything
no way jose. and neither is >>9763918.
he's/they're right about some of it, we're agreeing on the stupidity, but imho the stupidity of it derives from the wasted potential that was there in the balls-out first part. neo picking up the phone &c was really where the whole trilogy should have ended, not as lead-in into 2&3, where they had to introduce all of these secondary characters nobody cared about, play up the Chosen One narrative and so on. it's just all out of sync to my mind.

>more matrix backstory
>more smith
>less superman
>less retardedness

it's the one that got away. what is there is cool. and basically i'm just pining & wishing & memeing like a weenie. that's all.

agent smith did nothing wrong. he just didn't get a chance to tell his side of the story
>as a slow and glorious breakdown into madness which is not all that mad
>directed by nolan
>w/more baudrillard references and cynical terrorists trapped in their own games looking for The Truth
>more disaffected end-of-history outlaws peppering their dialogue with enigmatic quotes from baudrillard & nietzsche & debord &c and blasting each other away in a cyberpunk consumer hellscape
>where superheroes like neo are required to prop up failing orders of production they no longer believe in
>so sort of like moore/watchmen by way of the matrix
>hnng
>come on now
>game of drones
>w/ev

things failed hack writers think about.
>tfw hack
>tfw i'm okay with this tho
>tfw he loved big brother

full disclosure: i am a confirmed goofball.

>>9763921
pic rel. accelerando. transhumanism. cybernetic chic. defanged nietzscheanism. a very soft version of neo-objectivism. that would be my guess if things keep up along the current trajectory

>>9763693
but in this argument. who is neo?.

the next logical step: the metaphysics of enlightment in Nirvana songs

>>9763378
You can't teach virtue, even if they're willing. Forcing it through revolution, as the meaning of the words implies, only circles in an endless loop.

>>9763948
i noticed long ago the simplest problem with the matrix that would essentially make it necessary to question the whole concept of the film.

why the fuck don't the robots just use their collected energy, reach earth's escape velocity, and build dyson spheres around stars for the remainder of the universe? one theory, man literally created the matrix after a war between men alone, and created a symbiotic relationship with robots and humans. if they were genuine A.I. capable of crafting such a specific system to allow humans to be immersed in a dream of brahma, as well as collect energy off of them in the process, they would certainly be capable of leaving the earth, no matter how "scorched the sky" is. no, the premise of the film is misguided. we made the matrix to relive the turn of the century.

>>9763983
aand, most likely, there are paradises built for the elite, while the general populace are suffered to exist in non mmorpgesque wonderlands. also, one might wonder how in the hell are children born in the matrix? is sperm transferred from body to body through the vast systems? do they correspond with the children made in the matrix? the fuck is going on there?

File: Simulakrlar-ve-simulasyon-jean-Baudrillard-Matrix-.jpg (532KB, 2465x2378px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 2465x2378px

>>9763983
Let me stop you right there. The human beings found a source of energy to rival the machine's technology. What was it? They were able to host their own Matrix like simulations likely involving massive computing power, have hovercrafts, and an entire underground city functioning on some small unstated power-source.

But the machines need miles of human fields to collect their heat energy? It's absurd in the extreme. The "enemy" in the Matrix never makes sense, it's just a pretext for the fashionability of rebellion.

Also reminder Neo was a pleb.

File: 66207.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>9763916
>you live in your own matrix movie. kind of interesting with your discourse.
this is objectively true, i can't even get mad. trapped in my own badly-designed transcendental time machine, a thing i do not know how to operate, & memeing desperately
>my time machine is not remotely as classy as pic rel. mine is fuelled by cigarettes, spectacle and chicken mcnuggets

>>9763952
>but in this argument. who is neo?
interesting idea: zizek hated the dark knight b/c, as an old-guard communist, he thought that nolan was basically making a cynical argument about the need for a platonic holy lie w/o which civilization would crumble. of course this is a silly & provocative comment to make b/c if that were so nolan would not be able to direct the film as intelligently as he does, which is among other things a deconstruction of heroism
>die as a hero or live long enough to become a villain

this is why harvey dent matters. in the matrix there is no one as multifaceted as that or the joker. neo is Good, smith is Bad, and the Matrix really is the matrix: a world of the real clearly and obviously separated from the world of the virtual. which is why the characters are able to, if not *required to* talk in Capital Letters about the Meaning of the Matrix and so on. which is why it gets so heavy on the mysticism later on.

if you take out the monomyth or at least don't play it so straight you wind up with a more interesting film. neo is Chosen One boilerplate. but if you make smith the Chosen One *but kept him as agent smith* you have a more interesting film.

a Chosen One makes for predictable, though still often satisfying, narrative. all i'm saying is that b/c i happen to be so fascinated with the consumer society smith rather than neo had more going on.

>>9763983
>why the fuck don't the robots just use their collected energy, reach earth's escape velocity, and build dyson spheres around stars for the remainder of the universe? one theory, man literally created the matrix after a war between men alone, and created a symbiotic relationship with robots and humans. if they were genuine A.I. capable of crafting such a specific system to allow humans to be immersed in a dream of brahma, as well as collect energy off of them in the process, they would certainly be capable of leaving the earth, no matter how "scorched the sky" is. no, the premise of the film is misguided.
*boom.* this i can totally agree with.

>we made the matrix to relive the turn of the century
and this *absolutely.*
>so we made the matrix to look like this, the pinnacle of your civilization, morpheus

there's *all kinds* of interesting stuff going on here. the desire for nostalgia, the *aversion* to change. smith is an instrument of control, but he has a higher awareness of all of this. neo is going to do neo things. the *bigger picture* is where it's at. *how* that society came to be. all this.

>>9763994
this also. too many interesting ideas left unexplored rather than too few.

>>9764016
all around the film is just trash. blow it up. i agree with that. agent smith would be pretty compelling. agreed. his conversation with morpheus alone was the best scene in the flick.

File: IMG_2314.gif (774KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 500x374px

>>9763899
>not getting triggered
Unfortunately I'm a bit like pic related

>>9763983
>we made the matrix to relive the turn of the century.
it came out in 1999 dude

File: 51esEF1N9fL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (46KB, 350x476px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 350x476px

>>9764016
>The "enemy" in the Matrix never makes sense, it's just a pretext for the fashionability of rebellion.

exactly this also. in many ways it's a commentary on idpol, although in a very roundabout way. Heroic Resistance makes sense *if the matrix is an objectively knowable reality.* but if it *isn't* not because it is socially constructed but because IRL the Matrix is not one objectively visible phenomenon but is a product of *ideology...*

Zizek: I Want a Third Pill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-0VMnFmnL0

>>9764036
your point? i mean the matrix as a concept in the film, not the film itself, silly.

>analyzing a film made by 2 men who cut off their dicks for 'insight'
now this is post modernism

File: name.jpg (186KB, 736x933px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 736x933px

dude Matrix LMAO

>>9764042
What is with these destructive comments?

File: IMG_2315.gif (1009KB, 377x285px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 377x285px

>ctrl+f
>no JG Ballard

>>9764022
>neo is Chosen One boilerplate
but why it´s needed a Choosen One boilerplate?.

File: 82be3330996257f1e9b353670fd9deae049d11d0.jpg (194KB, 880x660px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 880x660px

>>9764037
the thing about cypher is that he is a mercenary. in 2016 he could have been with hillary or with trump. it wouldn't matter. he voluntarily chooses the illusion over the reality. b/c he can't tell the difference. what is the compelling reason to stay in the matrix? the taste of the steak.

It's the same with the Merovingian. His argument in favor of the Matrix is because he gets to experience infinite female orgasms. Who is against infinite female orgasms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3fSL9WMdg

Of all of the shit that Star Trek: TNG showed us would be possible in the future the most intriguing possibility was the holodeck. Why not just spend your whole life inside it? What if while you were in there the rest of the crew had died and the Enterprise was now drifting infinitely through space or into a sun? Would you even notice? Would you even care?

So the Matrix has at least these dual meanings going on. One is the literal technology that allows virtualization to happen, and the other is the theoretical stuff that both questions this (metaphysics) but at the same time continually seems to propel a civilization forward towards greater and greater technological mastery of virtuality
>and potentially the virtuality we were always meant to wind up in.

Baudrillard lamented Feels > Reals but he also knew that you couldn't invoke the Reals anymore without sounding like a nostalgic retard. So this is why Deleuze matters for talking about the virtual and the actual. Much else. Baudrillard's hyperreal is not a crazy idea but it's always understood through his Marxist disaffection. Land's bitcoin worship is/isn't hyperreal because there you have a virtual cryptocurrency with real-world import and no longer tied to the whims of the federal reserve (and thus two steps removed from the gold standard).

Much else. In films I am old school, I guess: the good guys *should* win but not until after the bad guys get all of their stuff off their chests.

>>9764175
>but why it´s needed a Choosen One boilerplate?
b/c people like boilerplate. and writers too. i mean, you have to end the story eventually, right?

the problem with monomyth is, well, it's monomyth. look at poor GRRM these days, trying to wrap up what was once a nice three-part series, now 20+ years and counting in. boilerplate is reliable, tried and true, works at the box office, maybe good for your screenwriter's jungian psyche. but it's also very predictable. and when you want to mess with there's no telling what might happen. you might get a literary masterpiece, you might get weirdness, who knows.

girard-tier Great Literature often does follow these tropes, but great authors are great because they aren't bound up by them. somehow. they manage to communicate something about desire that stands the test of time. that's the kind of stuff that goes in the canon.

>inferno: in the canon
>moby-dick: in the canon
>the matrix: probably not in the canon

>>9764166
I don't know how many establishment people consider him a postmodernist but I think he is. The Unabomber too.

File: IMG_2316.gif (417KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 300x225px

>>9764216
Monomyth, heroics, what if Neo continued to be a functionary would the story have been the same? Or more to the point, Precious little time for heroics, some people play a part and some fulfill a role, but if they leave the stage, start bugging the director with questions then what happens to the production? Chaos? No, not exactly, the part has become a part of the player and the director then is directing directly. And where is the audience? They are now interacting with the play in a whole new way, questioning it, leaving for a cigarette, mad as hell that they spent money on this shit. And out into the street it goes, the players arguing screaming and kicking dogs, windows open above and babies start crying, the police come and beat the whole thing into silence, and then? In the jailhouse, the player is raped, the director finds god through a twelve step program, but they are still walled in. We are here to go; the more we assert ourselves against full integration with the machines, the more time we are losing, the event horizon is shrinking like a pupil after the heady hit of a fentanyl syringe; time to go.

>>9764216
if Smith is the choosen one and you are explicit about that. neo seems like a cheap subtrama story. i mean. if you want Smith like something subtle you have almost the same what we already have.
neo like hiper hero-god figure and Smith like some Kind of villian to restore everything.

i want to say something with this, but i dont remember well. maybe im misunderstood everything. the wachowski should have bite the "we create the matrix" theme. but then i dont know well how manage the story.

File: 1498487693387.jpg (140KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1680x1050px

>>9764267
preach it
also

>THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.

>The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

>"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

>Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

>It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

(cont'd)

>>9764277
easily. just at the end of the matrix, have smith confront morpheus, and neo upon his triumphal realization that he is the one. have smith simply explain the truth is that man created all of this and that his pursuit of the destruction of the machines was ultimately self defeating in that it will annihilate mankind. then, the one surrenders to angst and destroys himself and zion by surging through morpheus's mind via the matrix, and revealing the codes or whatever. then a nice and neat prequel that shows the science and the philosophy.

File: seagalvhs.jpg (99KB, 580x869px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 580x869px

>>9764267
>>9764291
could have used any number of pics there for what is arguably the greatest mic-drop moment of modern philosophy. but.
>also infinite guilt & ressentiment is probably not what the neetch would have wanted
>gotta be cheerful in the 21C
>or you get devoured by sharks with frickin' laser eyes &c

>>9764277
>smith is the choosen one and you are explicit about that. neo seems like a cheap subtrama story. i mean. if you want Smith like something subtle you have almost the same what we already have.
neo like hiper hero-god figure and Smith like some Kind of villian to restore everything.
it would def require some retooling. with heroes and villains you always have some question about the Law, the City and so on. arguably this is just wired-in to our western mindset: those interesting places where greek philosophy and judaeo-christian religion get tangled up
>esp the last two, christ vs the law
>the law is the law
>i overturn all laws
>this is going to be complicated isn't it
>you betcha
>can the roman empire keep a lid on it?
>no it cannot
>ok then

so how interesting a conversation can you make it? the dark knight did it well. so did the sequel. terroristic villains always show what people are afraid of. it's why there has been a bond film every 3-4 years for decades. dealing with terroristic threats to World Security is what bond does, but he's no superhero either.

making neo into a superhero was where things went pear-shaped, and letting smith become a boring meme (instead of the incredibly interesting meme he might have been) is why the later films fail.

>Smith like some Kind of villian to restore everything.
*yes* indeed. the restorative power of the *villain* - this is where nietzsche gets interesting. b/c we need to see villains get blown up on screen. because the heroes get the girl but the villains get to steal the scenes.

on a slightly different note: consider the interesting case of steven seagal. why doesn't this scene work? because seagal is so obviously overpowering that there's no tension. indeed you feel weird just watching it because it's some kind of righteous cruelty on display but clearly excessive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXuYMzu5_xs

seagal's greatest moment was in pic related precisely because it was such a shock to see him get killed. now *that* was really something!

it's also another sad fact that he wouldn't allow himself to get his second run in an expendables film
>and that's another disappointment!
>the expendables should have kicked ass!
>goddamnit hollywood y u so fun but also so stupid

>i want to say something with this, but i dont remember well. maybe im misunderstood everything. the wachowski should have bite the "we create the matrix" theme. but then i dont know well how manage the story.
it's an interesting question. just need smart auteurs i think.

>>9764309
i can into this

>>9764309
have smith simply explain the truth is that man created all of this
this could have been the "luke im your father" of an entire generation. what a shame. what the fuck they are thinking when they wrote the sequels?.

>>9764365
also, i was thinking a sequel of the matrix could be transhumanism, where some in the matrix leave their bodies, and become aspects of the matrix without it, where more philosophy could be toyed with, in the fashion of the irregular programs found throughout the second and third films. sort of a renaissance of human transformation and evolution, eventually giving rise to the symbiotic human/machines leaving the planet to gather energy, human minds existing in a traveling matrix "box", or some such.

File: 2c1719336c1abed5aa90a1f78a757616--matrix-art-the-matrix.jpg (21KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x667px

>>9764380
>this could have been the "luke im your father" of an entire generation. what a shame. what the fuck they are thinking when they wrote the sequels?.
this. that's exactly how i feel too. they had lightning in a bottle and they let it go. everybody knows the red pill now, it's a cultural meme supreme. the nebuchadnezzar could have been the millennium falcon. it was all there on the table.

the matrix is really a turning point for so much stuff.
>we redesigned to this, the pinnacle of your civilization

all the intimations about the end of a neoliberal era coming around, all of baudrillard's prognostications. pre-9/11 too. dark times ahead. so much else.

it will get a reboot eventually i'm sure. just too much interesting shit there for it not to be so.

>>9759456

you're not really thinking, or making any kind of valuable point. instead you're just shuffling meaningless categories around and describing their relationships

>>9764427
well, in the end, i think they stole that lightning from ghost in the shell, to be honest, and didn't know what to do with it, and dropped it.

File: tong_matrix_variant_archive_thumb_9b161243-b97f-4c0f-955c-9899ad8e7a16_1024x1024.jpg (46KB, 466x700px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 466x700px

>>9764426
sounds fucking great

>transhumanism
i mean to some degree these are themes that perhaps explain the recent vogue for marvel comics films, which are all about the weird responsibilities of humans with excessive powers, their obligations to the city and the law and so on. the MCU lives in its own self-contained world and as such most of the interesting possibilities for social commentary are negated.

this is not a kind of plea for Muh Commentary. those make for bad films. but at the same time films w/o some kind of higher sense come across as simply vapid spectacle. when films manage to get near to what can be called literature - the dark knight is a good example, dune, lord of the rings, many others - it's a different animal altogether.

so yeah, a transhumanist opera would be dope as fuck. b/c in the end it *is* humans doing all this shit to themselves. we make the tech and the tech exceeds our control. even in the Alien films where you have an obvious xenomorph the real gravitas of the story proceeds from the fact that the Weyland-Yutani corporation is prepared to sacrifice human lives for knowledge. the more recent Alien films that get into the Prometheans/engineers &c are always kind of flat b/c it's just speculation dressed up as narrative. once you stray too far from human beings doing human things it's just ideology.

tolkien works b/c the elves, dwarves &c are still human, basically. in dune everything is human and dune rules. once humanity begins to look stupid and insignificant and explaino-bots are required interest wanes.

>>9764446
very possible. GITS is stupendously awesome. shirow's cyberscapes look sort of like giger's sometimes but i prefer cool japanese manga to giger implying my junk is a gun that shoots tiny skull-faced daemons or whatever

the new GITS movie was boring & stupid
old GITS is awesome & wicked

which reminds me
>>9764042
>analyzing a film made by 2 men who cut off their dicks for 'insight'
>brb going to cut off my dick

File: IMG_2305.gif (862KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 480x270px

>>9764440
>let me invalidate your point with hollow criticism to aggrandize myself to myself
No matter the first post was not meant to be my final statement but a starting point for discussion which took place ITT cheers to all who contributed

File: c14b24637fe33c0d8916146276278f8f.jpg (108KB, 309x297px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 309x297px

>>9764476
>inb4 lys dune & lotr already *are* literature dumbfuck
>ok, thx, thx

anyways, and speaking of: in LotR the *destruction of the technology of control* is the central theme. same also w/pic related (and very similar final sequences, down in the lava of creation). interesting how this stuff works...

we are spooked by tech b/c we do not yet know what a body can do. maybe that's what it's all about. prescripts & postscripts on the societies of control

>the coils of a serpent are even more complex than the burrows of a molehill

https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

>>9764483
cheers to you sir this was indeed very fun

>>9764216
surprised you havent mentioned Inception yet

File: Inception-Plot.jpg (88KB, 602x851px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 602x851px

>>9764567
aye that's a good call. it might be one of those stories like finnegan's wake tho. there's a horizon beyond which if the film is too smart you don't really care. let me see heath ledger blowing up cop cars with a bazooka and making pencils disappear, i'm good with that, that's what i want

but inception no doubt has text for days, nolan is a genius and everything he directs is awesome. looking forward to him doing a bond film also

basically if the director indicates that he is massively more interesting than me then wtf i can't do my own charming brand of Bloody Postmodern NeoMarxist Nihilist film criticism on it

which by the way only confirms how much i love peterson

but yeah talk about inception if you want, i admit it didn't get me as much, maybe there's something i'm not seeing
>guaranteed there is

snowpiercer was another good one about this
>and battle royale
>and blade runner
>lots of good films about humans doing shitty things to each other Because Reasons
>man we are a fucked-up species

Why do so many people think deconstruction is about destroying? Is it because of Jordan Memeson?

Where do you guys get these naughty gifs?

>>9764865
Because it values deconstructionist bias over creators

File: corbis_derrida_bw.jpg (61KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x420px

>>9764865
partly because it is. j-pete always brings up lacan, foucault and derrida as archpriests of this and in many ways he's not wrong. the problem is that is reading of them is so uncharitable

>lacan wants to show you that desire is the desire of the other
>foucault is interested in the curiously sadomasochistic aspects of power, along with much else
>derrida wants to show how ill-equipped language is to deal w/representation

all of these things are going to contribute in a way to loosening the connections between the Heroic Modernist Individual, Who Knows What He Is Saying and What They Want, Which is Perfectly Reasonable and You Can Too and the World He Lives In.

b/c ofc it isn't. nobody works like this, and in the 60s-80s that stuff had to get deconstructed because it was and remains a completely silly way to do things. it also allows for all kinds of Because Reasons arguments to be given in favor of shit that is legit not great: namely, oppression, totalitarianism, cruelty, w/ev

today we now have to pick up the pieces because the issue is not *oppression* but *decadence.* hence the red pill

but at the same time none of those guys would have been especially impressed with the air-horning and deplatforming of people like JBP either. Derrida would have given j-pete a classic Derrida Look and he would have been right to do so. Derrida, and those other two guys, are beasts. they are also channeling shit that leads into the holocaust, Stalinism, and much much else.

but Peterson is also correct to sniff out what happens when all of this is interpreted as gospel, and why - even though language is profoundly fragile - people are still nevertheless required to use it, and in so doing invoke all the spectres of existentialism, finitude, and so on. one guy Peterson doesn't seem to talk much about is Heidegger, who both Derrida and Lacan are influenced by. Heidegger's involvement with the nazis is ofc a problem because B&T is a big deal book. JBP is more concerned with stalinist rather than nazi terror, which is what makes him interesting.

even derrida would have wanted people to *read* the canon before racing in to deconstruct it. although this of course is precisely what nobody does b/c they want to have all the fun of Unpacking the Discourse without actually realizing that there may be parts of the text that *aren't* discourse - namely, them, and what the fuck they are doing there reading it in the first place.

progressivism is dangerous stuff. it's why deleuze disliked hegel. it's also why land talks about atomization, b/c in the end you get a lot of people beholden to private gods they don't understand. there's a better way to do literary criticism, imho, and girard knows what it is. but sadly he seems to belong to a different age.

still tho peterson is way cool and he's got big swinging balls of steel. it's not like derrida wasn't used to being shit on either while he was alive. none of this would surprise him.

>>9764897
this

>>9764897
>Because it values deconstructionist bias over creators

No?

I'm pretty sure Derrida was talking about not ignoring the "shadows" of creation and categorization.

It's pointed out quite well in the pic in this post>>9760168

>>9764897
Deconstructionist bias isn't destructive though. Given Derrida's neologisms and use of words I am 99% sure he wouldn't say 'deconstruction' when he meant 'destruction'. His explanations for deconstruction don't suggest a destruction either. Deconstruction is just what happens when you read texts

>>9764950
Marxists and culture subverters used it as a way to destroy social constructs though.

>see Focault.

>>9764915
>one guy Peterson doesn't seem to talk much about is Heidegger

He has a whole lecture on the phenomenology of being, so he does talk about him quite a lot actually.

>>9764952
Yeah they did in his time too and he said even then that it's a surprising interpretation. Blame the Americans.

>>9764971
why is a guy with a psychology phd lecture plebs on youtube about philosophy? i want to like the alt-right but they're all so fucking gullible and stupid

>>9764977
Because psychology is by definition a multi-disciplinary field. Several philosophers have spoken and written about psychology, and you can't just ignore them.

>I want to like the alt-right

What does the alt-right have to do with Jordan Peterson?

File: michel-foucault-472672.jpg (123KB, 640x852px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 640x852px

>>9764952
the supreme irony of this is that if Foucault were rehabilitated and wielded against the Cathedral and other things that keeps /pol/ awake at night he would overnight become one of their favorite guys.

a rightwing/redpilled Foucault would be a nightmare. it's not likely to happen, of course, because basically the whole project of poststructuralism was exactly that, to destructuralize. it criticizes that which is there in society. but in some sense i can't really see a reason why one could not use foucauldian/derridean thought against an academic culture which is plainly hegemonic. the issue would be that you would probably not be able to do it from within the university
>unless you're jordan b peterson

peterson is not likely to launch a petersonian school of *critique* because it is *critique* itself which is the issue under review. baudrillard sees it coming, land also. lots of others - but those guys are academics who live on that stuff. which makes their various turns and twistings in it interesting. both, unsurprisingly, wind up leaving academia.

peterson's thing is *self*-critique. so it makes sense that he draws on jung rather than freud and the old testament instead of marx. he's just so cool.

but foucault/lacan/derrida/et al are plainly not the enemy. the enemy is dumbness, decadence, narcissism, all the rest. ressentiment.

>>9764971
shit, there i go thinking i know things. working my way through the biblical stories & they're terrific. going to go listen to some of that stuff now. check back with you guys later

>>9760168
t. Unabomber

>>9764600
>snowpiercer
such a fantastic movie. really a great example of making a quality action movie but also having philosohical and political depth into it

that said, I also agree with the point the movie is making, so the heavy-handness might come off as bad to others

but the destruction of it all for a more perfect and ethical world. who cant get behind that?
>in theory of course ha

File: tumblr_o7cktgeh3X1uaxri9o1_500-1.jpg (72KB, 500x404px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x404px

>>9765457
theodore kaczynski did nothing wrong
>hang on no wait a second he fucking did everything wrong that jackass
>did write a good manifesto tho

virilio's just another cool catholic philosopher
>i keep finding those guys are my favorites
>ellul, chardin, virilio, girard, de maistre, cortes, mcluhan, schmitt (for a while, anyways), heidegger (it's there)
>pic rel

>>9766008
can't make an omelette w/o breaking a few civilizations

i've been reading gauthier's chivalry b/c of a thread about knights. i'm liking that too. in general modernist utopia-building just seems to have a rather spotty record. i'm certain this is why the zeitgeist is clamouring for superhero movies these days, for heroes in magic underpants to explain the meaning of politics b/c politics is presently so out of control

o that more perfect & ethical world i tells ya
wat do

>>9765000
how are you able to recall all this shit off the top of your head. you are like a 76 year old professor who can give a lecture on any question you have

>>9766057
You read any kirkpatrick sale? any opinions of him?

and while this is lit, might as well ask what you think of pynchon.
honestlly pynchon is one of my true loves. keeps me stuck in high though, but also brings me back down to earth.
this is great because i spend a lot of time stuck high in though and then the other stuff i do is purposely in my life to bring me back down to earth. pynchon and a couple poets are some of the only things that can do both at the same time

File: Anatomical-Diagram-of-a-Hagfish-C-Jon-Houseman.png (49KB, 445x230px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 445x230px

>>9766080
why the answer is simple my good man

it is because i am a ridiculous fuckface mutant with absolutely no life or ambitions

& that's b/c i spend all my time reading philosophy & shitposting

would do again, ofc
>eternal recurrence of the lame

but warrants mentioning

File: af3df399d9979a80cbe3b7e7924b3eb1.jpg (180KB, 500x673px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 500x673px

>>9766090
never even heard of kirkpatrick sale but he sounds very interesting. sounds like an eco-guy and i like those guys, they're usually pretty interesting. cheers for the rec

>pynchon
ok seriously was he actually here a few weeks ago? or did we just get memed? that's one thing

i actually haven't read GR yet but it's on my list. i'm expecting it to be awesome & i'm sure he's a very interesting dude.

>this is great because i spend a lot of time stuck high in though and then the other stuff i do is purposely in my life to bring me back down to earth. pynchon and a couple poets are some of the only things that can do both at the same time
yeah. fiction is cool. i tend to binge on philosophy but fiction writers can do stuff and communicate stuff that opens up all kinds of new doors or just expresses things in ways that theory can't. thomas mann has this effect on me, mccarthy obv. no doubt pynch will as well, i'm ready to be a believer there

poetry is no joke either, the really good stuff only gives you more of the feels the more you read it. i can't think off-hand of the poets who really got me: rilke for sure, robinson jeffers i learned about through /lit/, some of garcia lorca.

this one gets me.

this thread is 2 good

>>9759456
>Is the problem with Postmodernity that it represents a degeneration of Modernity?
Define your terms or fuck off. That's literally the only reasonable to say to anyone who even uses the words "post modern".

File: Dante_et_Virgile-William_Bouguereau.jpg (95KB, 800x1015px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x1015px

>>9764523
>*destruction of the technology of control*

I wouldn't say it destroys control, but we willingly relinquish control - ergo responsibility, it is a boulder - to somebody/thing that takes responsibility for being in control, but because it isn't human, like the ring which is just power, like technology, which is also just power, it destroy itself, always, in the end. It lacks virtue.

I'd go with *relinquishing responsibility is destruction*.

File: 1500155707339.jpg (63KB, 557x515px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 557x515px

>>9767346
>I'd go with *relinquishing responsibility is destruction*

i unironically love this. my first instinct is the bog-standard one: responsibility to what? to who? and so on. but these aren't even questions, are they. they're *defense mechanisms.* and thoroughly played out at that.

grasping responsibility, even if this means so little as just thinking about it, is a good look. it may be the case that our subjectivity - even if this is after deleuze a thing which is by no means fixed - is something that only can be said to come into play with some measure of responsibility. if you don't want to have a self, that's fine, but the fact is that when you decline, refuse, defer, resist and so on that subjectivity (again, always the impossible, frustrating, pointless elephant in the room) - comes into play.

generally speaking i loathe responsibility but i am deeply conflicted about it. it's a long and complicated tale mainly involving a lot of anger and frustration. pleasing gods who didn't really needed to be pleased. external and internal. and then getting to a point of hyper-indifference & introspection where All Is Vanity seemed to be a difficult idea to argue with. even if you're right it sucks.

but then you go, what are the horizons of responsibility? how much? how long? how often? for who? right? but the thing is, these aren't really questions. they only look like questions. they're just defense mechanisms, *countermeasures*, missile chaff.

of course tech is everywhere in this & related to this question. the more we tech up, the more all we need to do is keep those smooth flows flowing. it's indifference that really is hard to argue with. and ressentiment. b/c the thing is that i really wound up in this place by relentlessly scraping around these questions: responsibility *for who.* *how.* *for what.* and of course, if you ask questions in that way you won't get answers because all one is doing is ultimately just saying I Want and this is exactly what has to be circumnavigated, transcended, freed up, whatever.

this one really made me think anon. would be most happy if you followed up on that line of thought.

>>9767821
wait wait wait wait. is that fucking fou-lu? someone else in the world likes fou-lu? holy fucking shitsnacks. remember in the beginning of the game, and it uses him to show overwhelming power compared to what you're used to upon using a mere one-five level characters?
Also, you try to tell me when Ryu first goes Kaiser after the empire murders that entire village that shit isn't fucking awesome. Fou Lu fersure is one of if not my favorite villians.

File: 1335114907102.jpg (10KB, 247x262px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x262px

>>9767346
Every time

File: Napoleon_at_the_Great_St._Bernard_-_Jacques-Louis_David_1.jpg (366KB, 1000x1195px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1000x1195px

>>9767821
Everything, but the sceond last paragraph are excuses. You're rationalizing. Virtue isn't rational.

Lying is the obfuscation of reality to avoid responsibility. The matrix, the terminators, the ring, the spice are all obfuscations, and as lies are wont to do inevitably self-destruct. The matrix collapses and Neo dies, the terminators fall into a pit of lava killing Schwarzeneger, same for the ring along with Gollum, and the spice destroys the Guildsmen and Muad'dib. Somebody always dies, but the heroes live on in their children. The grandma and the kid, John Connor ( J.C. ┼), Frodo and the Fellowship, Muad'dib's progeny all continue.

We keep relinquishing control to these entities, only to watch them fail in a maso-sadochistic manner, since we also die in the process, just so we can prove to them that they're shit, and we're the Kings.

File: 04visitinghours92-1-590x657.jpg (173KB, 590x657px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 590x657px

>>9760624
>>9760669
>Deleuze's book on masochism
finished it recently--it's great but definitely a "minor work." overall, it's more a work of literary criticism than one of psychology, even when he's using freud to explain sado and masoc fantasies. the most interesting thing about it imo is that it offers a lead-up both to Difference and Repetition and Anti-Oedipus. the book climaxes with his revelation that sadism and masochism use pain to free repetition (which if you've read D&R you'll know how important this is); the thinking that would later be built into the Capitalism and Schizophrenia volumes arrives in his analysis of how specific societal practices in sado and masoc are detached from the milieu in which they exist as a way to prefigure a new society built upon these practices. the language is of course different than it would be in C&S, but you can see the idea of ATP's scapegoat forming. sadism, for instance, takes the enlightenment's focus on mathematical demonstration (i.e. instantiation of proof) and uses this to construct a sexual relationship in which the master repeats his cruelty endlessly as the embodiment of an ideal transgression that can never be fully realized on this earth. the hierarchy implied by it is one without fixed rules, only dominant relations (which forms the structure of institution, as Sade saw it). masochism has its own version of this that's harder to explain in brief, relying creating an ideal mother based on freudian tropes.

anyway, a great book if you've read a lot of other deleuze. you can see him about to "write in his own voice" as he called D&R. it's still a work of criticism like his early monographs, but it's chocked full of prototypes of some of his most important concepts, namely repetition, body without organs, the "machinic" type of literary crit found in his book on kafka, and, of course, an obsession with desire

File: 51Rsn7FcFlL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (56KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 333x499px

>>9768856
games not infrequently the new cinema & have tons & tons & tons of shit to say

esp in terms of narrative, *you choose the ending*

and when the characterization is interesting that's a big win for the medium

>>9769150
>You're rationalizing
true

Virtue isn't rational
also true. this anon is wise

>Lying is the obfuscation of reality to avoid responsibility.
yes. which is why sophistry & cynicism/narcissism are endgame problems

>We keep relinquishing control to these entities, only to watch them fail in a maso-sadochistic manner, since we also die in the process, just so we can prove to them that they're shit, and we're the Kings.
>tfw maso-sadochism

it's all death wish stuff, isn't it? was warshow right? we go to the cinema to see people braver than us fight and defeat monsters *even braver still* than us b/c they were willing to break the rules, while the rest of us are forgiven for being allowed to fail as we are, as we necessarily are? is that it?

don't games also, though not always, implicitly challenge this by allowing us - as in the case of fou-lu/BoF4 to choose the ending?
>see also far cry, many others
>icycalm did nothing wrong

>We keep relinquishing control to these entities, only to watch them fail in a maso-sadochistic manner, since we also die in the process, just so we can prove to them that they're shit, and we're the Kings.
talk more about this tho i want to make sure i'm understanding you correctly and not just talking past you

it's a bad habit of mine, not listening when somebody says something interesting

i'm very much in a mood to learn something interesting today

>>9760719
>The future of the future is the present.
holy shit

File: mcluhan1.jpg (37KB, 312x210px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 312x210px

>>9769229
mcluhan yo

i'm telling you

the man was a prophet

mcluhan/deleuze 2020
My Body Is Ready

File: da1f886d8cacb167a68f64a65f190abf--sword-tattoo-the-sword.jpg (62KB, 736x837px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 736x837px

>>9769194
are you the anon who asked me about girard & sadomasochism a while ago? i feel like you might be
>still no answer for you there either, apologies

>sadism and masochism use pain to free repetition (which if you've read D&R you'll know how important this is); the thinking that would later be built into the Capitalism and Schizophrenia volumes arrives in his analysis of how specific societal practices in sado and masoc are detached from the milieu in which they exist as a way to prefigure a new society built upon these practices
hnng
god i wish terry goodkind had read foucault instead of or at least with ayn rand
>tfw you will never read Sword of Discipline & Punish, a story of Objectivist Romance

>sadism, for instance, takes the enlightenment's focus on mathematical demonstration (i.e. instantiation of proof) and uses this to construct a sexual relationship in which the master repeats his cruelty endlessly as the embodiment of an ideal transgression that can never be fully realized on this earth. the hierarchy implied by it is one without fixed rules, only dominant relations (which forms the structure of institution, as Sade saw it). masochism has its own version of this that's harder to explain in brief, relying creating an ideal mother based on freudian tropes
hot damn that sounds incredible. maybe i'll read that one next

>anyway, a great book if you've read a lot of other deleuze. you can see him about to "write in his own voice" as he called D&R. it's still a work of criticism like his early monographs, but it's chocked full of prototypes of some of his most important concepts, namely repetition, body without organs, the "machinic" type of literary crit found in his book on kafka, and, of course, an obsession with desire
thank ye kindly anon this sounds tremendous

i was just thinking about how awesome the enlightenment was today & was going to post some shit about it

would be good to look at its weirder aspects

made me also think of Moorcock's Gloriana, weirdly. has i think interesting subliminal themes like that. have you read that? any thoughts?

>>9769210
We don't have a death wish. The Butlerian Jihad wasn't a death wish, it was just another monster, THAT WE CREATED;
just like the ring, the matrix, the terminators and the spice;
to be defeated and integrated, through VIRTUE; through temperance, prudence, courage, justice, self-sacrifice, honesty...; and through it's integration we evolve, which was it's entire purpose - the Jihad's - the strong live and the weak die, the rest get to advance humanity. And we don't fuck around when it comes to challenging them. We relinquish absolutely all of our control, and put it all on the line. And still wielding virtue, none of our monsters survive.

It's definitely not a death wish, but I don't understand what you mean by:

>we go to the cinema to see people braver than us fight and defeat monsters *even braver still* than us b/c they were willing to break the rules, while the rest of us are forgiven for being allowed to fail as we are, as we necessarily are? is that it?

And who the fuck is warshow?

File: 15924_shadow_of_the_colossus.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>9769315
>We don't have a death wish.
i'm ready to believe you. we do have ressentiment. it's essentially the same thing, imho.

>The Butlerian Jihad wasn't a death wish, it was just another monster, THAT WE CREATED;
just like the ring, the matrix, the terminators and the spice; to be defeated and integrated, through VIRTUE; through temperance, prudence, courage, justice, self-sacrifice, honesty...; and through it's integration we evolve, which was it's entire purpose - the Jihad's - the strong live and the weak die, the rest get to advance humanity. And we don't fuck around when it comes to challenging them. We relinquish absolutely all of our control, and put it all on the line.
i love it so hard

>And still wielding virtue, none of our monsters survive.
so into it. virtue fy
>brb going to be decadent slob & think about virtue
>no wait you can't do that. that's exactly what this anon is saying
>oh yeah right
>fuck

>And who the fuck is warshow?
see
>>9769210
author of a very good essay on the gangster in cinema

available here
http://www.andreelafontaine.com/uploads/4/5/1/1/45112963/warshow-gangster.pdf

>I don't understand what you mean
just check that essay. a very smart and sensitive man reflecting on why it is that we like to see gangsters get blown up on screen. mainly out of this desire to see those monsters killed, but these monsters were also a commentary on a society which punished them for their success when they broke the unfair rules around which that society is constituted. and how he as critic was aware of this, knowing that something much more interesting was going on psychologically &c.

ignore me
>always do this, except maybe when i link shit
just read the essay. you'll see

once more with feeling, though: fuck yes anon, Virtue. and Evil-smiting. good shit. i like it. awesomeness.

>>9769292
>are you the anon who asked me about girard & sadomasochism a while ago? i feel like you might be
no, but i post in your threads often. i'm currently trying to read *every* work by deleuze so you'll probably be reading a lot of me in the coming months/years.

File: 1498203153238.jpg (798KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1920x1080px

>>9769315
>>9769377

and, incidentally, b/c we are talking about games/literature/cinema:

not only in games are you allowed to choose your ending, but in games/VR you have to deal with *fear* in a way that movies don't, or not exactly.

some of the first movies ever made scared the shit out of people, and they were nothing more than stationary cameras watching trains shoot by

wait until VR catches up with that
or until you get to fight Dark Souls-tier monsters in full-on 3D

>be brave fuckers
>be brave
>and what did mcluhan say about fear?

aaah this thread

File: 14991781678251.jpg (526KB, 1500x1053px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1500x1053px

>>9769377
It's very romantic, I know. But arcing back to >>9767346 , the least romantic post. Relinquishing responsibility is the only way to destroy an evil, in a sense. First it must grow powerful, and only then can it be fought against, once it's a threat. Worthless until then. That is why we procrastinate the festering of evils.

>just check that essay. a very smart and sensitive man reflecting on why it is that we like to see gangsters get blown up on screen. mainly out of this desire to see those monsters killed, but these monsters were also a commentary on a society which punished them for their success when they broke the unfair rules around which that society is constituted. and how he as critic was aware of this, knowing that something much more interesting was going on psychologically &c.

I understand. The perverted desire for the evil-doers, the Jokers and such. The animals that do as they please, the virtueless. They reach this stage because we allow them to do so, until they become a threat that must be dispensed with, usually through self-destruction or self-sacrifice. But we must alow them to. So we can evolve.

>>9769394
awesome, looking forward to it

i don't know if i will have as much of a presence on /lit/ as i do now but i eventually wind up coming back here, so it's all good

>currently trying to read *every* work by deleuze
think i'm going to do this as well

File: 1497040143226.jpg (74KB, 1280x704px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1280x704px

>>9769435
>Relinquishing responsibility is the only way to destroy an evil, in a sense
why do you say it's about *relinquishing* responsibility? or are you saying that excessive vigilance actually makes things worse? b/c if that's the case i agree. conflicted about that but that doesn't mean anything. just genuinely curious. i think i understand

>The perverted desire for the evil-doers, the Jokers and such
yes. b/c the monster says, and does, excessively, that which society will not allow and ultimately cannot allow. b/c ultimately the middle path is good. but here you have the conflict:
>defend the middle way, chivalrously
>drop out and become taoist sage
ofc it may not really be a choice either. as in, resist dropping out and becoming a taoist sage until it's *time* to drop out and become a taoist sage
>and b/c if you don't die a hero you live long enough to see yourself become a villain

>But we must alow them to. So we can evolve.
monsters as evolutionary triggers?
>whoa

this is why i roll with peterson these days. the monsters are within, not without. and in many ways their greatest weapon is convincing you they don't exist, or in making you destroy some simulacrum/scapegoat other than getting at the root of the thing, which is where you can really go some wild places metaphysically

w/ev tho
anon i just have to say i like what i'm reading
that is all

also how fucking good is the divine comedy
how fucking with it was the catholic church in general
yikes

File: seven samurai.jpg (39KB, 424x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 424x600px

>>9769435
one more film rec

says so much about this kind of stuff

very much worth your time if you haven't seen it

>>9759603
>Explain the difference between modern and postmodern

Modernism is characterized primarily by progressivism and universalism
Postmodernism is the rejection of modernism and grand narratives

>>9760878
Post-modernism is inherently anti-communist and anti-Marxist

>>9761073
I know I am late to the thread, but thanks for the great suggestions man!

>>9764865
It's because deconstruction has its origin in the Heidegger's notion of destruktion

>>9764952
Foucault was not a Marxist

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2500x1613px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1613px

>>9769484
You are the ultimate bait.
We relinquish it, because we're presumptuous, and you must first be burnt to fear fire.

I'll read the hendecasyllabilic hell int the future, when i learn Italian, after Latin, after re-learning Deutsch.

>>9765000
We already have a right-wing postmodern deconstructionist and his name is Alexander Dugin

>>9769594
Jordan Peterson too.

Also, Mircea Eliade.

File: Girard.jpg (75KB, 481x320px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 481x320px

>>9769587
>you are the ultimate bait
holy fuck you are well & truly on another level

bait for what? for evil? explain this shit however you wish senpai. this is a formal request for answers. i assure you i am not memeing here. i would very much like to hear more about this

>>9769594
true. but foucault was a natural born scholar who would be able to engage with intellectuals on their home territory, showing them exactly how they are playing the game unfairly. i don't get that vibe from dugin, but i'll admit i haven't read all that much of him

>>9769610
peterson is the correct answer, since he's made it clear that he is more than just a counter-ideologue. he's awesome, joseph campbell 2.0 for the age of memes

>>9769551
no probs. obviously i mean the whole long 19C trilogy & not just that one book. check out giovanni arrighi also for more on capital & history if that's your thing
>and of course monsieur rene girard
>who is yet another agreeable post-postmodernist guy

File: Moby_Dick-Ken_Taylor-.jpg (213KB, 1167x551px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1167x551px

>>9769644
I can't. That's as far as it goes; You are the bait.
At least until I read Moby Dick, and see what Hermie figured out.

>>9759456
>is postmodernism in some essential way conservative?

It has been argued that postmodernism represents a return to European medievalism. Check out "Back to the Future; Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy" by Stephen Kobrin

>>9764986
>What does the alt-right have to do with Jordan Peterson?
Not that guy, but he was propelled to fame by the burned liberals and disgruntled 'alt-right' keyboard mensch because of that one video of him BTFOing SJW womyn and redpilling them about totalitarian pathologies

>>9762275
I think whom is correct actually. "others" is not the subject of the sentence, others is the object being read, so the objective form of who should be used

>>9771248
well, my thanks then for a wonderful & thought-provoking insight. bait a thing when one spends this much time thinking about desire (and fate), memes, simulation, fetishism & so on. to be a kind of bait itself is right next door to the lacanian stuff i am interested in. really top-tier stuff.

so good luck to you kind sir. hope melville has more of what you are seeking.

File: bait.jpg (676KB, 1344x2240px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1344x2240px

>>9772190
Was it bait? Or was it bait that was true?

Your Proustian writing is very mentally ill, with a wealth of literature to back it up. I'll also follow your example of picking a philosopher, and sticking with him until I comprehend. Then rinse and repeat, until Nietzsche demolishes my romanticism, and Jung revivifies it.

>>9773860
sorry, can you clarify why you're giving me the finger?

>>9773885
I ran out of paintings.

>>9773913
ok.

how about the mental illness part? i'm somewhat confused since you then immediately went on to say that you would follow my advice/wealth of literature &c.
>tfw not sure if i should be insulted or not
>not into giving advice really
>when it is taken i get a picture of a middle finger & told i am mentally ill
>so confused right now

not triggered, just perplexed

>>9773928
Your writing is mental, come on. It's scattered as fuck with very useful information, but also filled with useless ramblings. It's mental. As I said, I ran out of paintings, so I gave you my best drawing. Enjoy.

post modernism is essentially an overdose of ideology

File: Greek_Sculpture_Galore-1024x576.jpg (143KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x576px

>>9773954
gotcha

well it is a fine drawing, so thank you. god bless

>>9773977
haha