deleted by creator

Hah! Good one

Same, except i wasnt a lit major, just a guy who was going through the phase of “this is what intelligent people look like” while trying to educate myself. I was convinced DFW was the voice of our generation, heralding in a new era of consciousness.

The book is conceptually pretty cool, like it is really well written and he draws together so many disparate elements to make kind of a coherent narrative.

But the idea of making a book impossible to read on purpose is a funny joke, especially one that so many aspiring intelligentsia gush over. I can appreciate a good shaggy dog as much as the next guy, but IJ is just so far beyond the pale.

A book should be challenging because the concepts are unique and well considered, and it draws from lots of historic and philosophical research; not because the author decided to intentionally break the flow of the narrative to make you flip to the not-optional appendix to read 32 pages of made up synopsis about a character’s avant-garde filmography.

Quebec

Yeah if our reality could stop resembling Infinite Jest, that would be great. I can’t stand that stupid fucking book and how accurately it predicts our increasingly insane circumstances

Fascism shouldn’t be thought of as a static “thing” or an object of ideology. Peoples beliefs come from their environment. We are so individualized as a society that often we as progressives take “personal responsibility” too far, we buy the premise implicitly without realizing there are flaws with thinking in this way. Every logical system has flaws and contradictions, its proven mathematically though I think some systems are more rigorous and based on evidence.

GWF Hegel’s philosophy of Right was written in 1820, and influenced political thought ever since. Liberalism was still in it’s revolutionary phase and theories about it were still fairly new, the Wealth of Nations was written just 50 years before, and Karl Marx was like two when it was released, although it would serve as the basis for much of his work analyzing the hidden relationships of Capital, and ethical political philosophy on the whole.

The book is the closest I think someone can honestly get to an actual “horseshoe theory” because not only did it influence the left but it also influenced the far right. Hegel, using the works of other great liberal philosophers such as Locke and Kant, who Hegel was always working to surpass, applied his dialectical philosophical methods to the writings of liberalism.

What he discovered was a natural tendency toward what we would calll fascism. Like he prefigured fascism by 100 years. He wasn’t a fascist, there was no such thing. He was just exploring the ideas of this revolutionary philosophy, one that purported to liberate the mind, body and spirit, and discovered the oppressive seeds which might grow into something quite different.

This isn’t to call liberals fascists, I’m a communist and 20th century communism had a lot of problems, to put it mildly. I would say confidently that progressive liberals are not crypto fash, in fact the term “progressive” is a typically left-Hegelian ideal, in that it describes human progress and development as the subject of history. Instead it challenges the idea of the liberatory nature of private property, a key component of liberal thought. Of course this is all depending how you look at it, right-Hegelians see this same formulation as proof of the inevitability of their ideas and justification for their actions.

You’re getting a lot of different opinions about this stuff so I’m trying to make sort of a different point about philosophy, history and action. Other reading for a deep dive on fascism is the essay Ur Fascism by Umberto Eco (great empirical analysis, but the least scientific IMO), Trotsky’s pamphlet Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It, and HA Roy’s Fasism, Its Philosophy, Professions and Practice.

In a way, fascism has always been there below the surface, informally shifting the sands of history until it was formalized in the early 20th century. I don’t think you can have a society based on private property without some elements of fascism somewhere. Mostly “western democracies” will outsource their extreme cruelty to other countries where it doesn’t affect their citizens.

But in summary, Fascism is the realization of the contradictions inherent in liberal ideology, its liberalism turned inside-out, with all its appearances of justice and freedom cut away, leaving only the logic of expansion and domination that most liberal democracies do their best to hide. This is how fascists are able to hide in our society, their individual beliefs are not completely unpalatable to centrists and conservatives who have also started to dispense with justice and freedom in the interest of national greatness. Its what makes their beliefs so malleable, and its also why liberals have such a hard time defining it. But fascism isn’t an individual’s beliefs, if it was it would be just regular bog-standard chauvinism. Fascism is a mass movement which will use charismatic leaders amenable to their politics to rally the masses.

In our society, the middle classes are the “battery” for fascism. Middle classes are constantly under attack under capitalism and the individuals often feel this and become paranoid (doomsday prepping, etc.,) and this paranoia and real social pressure to produce or be wiped out, the fear from the constant threat of precarity and uncertainty fits hand in glove with the aims and means of fascists.

Ripping donies

deleted by creator

The ball was red, like a red rubber ball. The person was sort of indistinct from the neck up, it was more like my view was focused on the ball itself and didn’t see a face, but it was a man, wearing a white shirt and dark tie, and dark pants. The ball was about the size of a baseball, wasn’t completely smooth and shiny, sort of a matte with a slight grippy texture. Table was square, wood, like a medium brown color. The ball rolled off the table and bounced a few times.

All these decisions were automatic when reading the prompt, it’s what I saw.

I’ve just become aware of aphantasia myself, I have a few family members who have it apparently. I was talking to my BIL about it the other day, I was saying how I’m a big fan of reading, but I mostly read nonfiction. He said he doesn’t read much, mostly biographies, but fiction doesn’t do much for him because he can’t picture anything in his head. I can picture everything in great detail when I read fiction. Its interesting because our minds work very differently

Scientific research indicates we see colors pretty damn similarly, with edge cases for colorblindness and also people who are more color sensitive.

One way this can be studied is by studying the metamerism of different colors by different observers. Metamerism is the study of how colors change given different light sources.

There are other objective qualities that give hints that we have similar ways of experiencing colors. You mention that colors are nothing more than our brain assigning “color” to frequency of light – but light is itself just a frequency of electromagnetic radiation, namely the frequencies that make up the bulk of the radiation emitted by the sun.

So to a normal observer without colorblindness, there are more variants of colors of green than any other color. Green is of course situated in the very center of the roygbiv spectrum, it is the “most visible” color. The colors with the least amount of variations are red and violet, which are situated at the edges. Frequencies above violet or below red become invisible making up infrared and ultraviolet radiation.

Where we get tricked up, and I used to have identical suspicions as you did, is that we consider color to be purely subjective, because we aren’t taught to unify subjectivity and objectivity into a united whole. Color isn’t completely imagined, there are certain surfaces that absorb and reflect certain frequencies of EM radiation just as the structures in our brain that process this ocular input are more or less similar. Things that are subjective aren’t usually associated with being “real” the same way that objectively “real” things that exist out in the phenomenal world are. However, color is socially real, we can almost all identify colors that are the same and colors which are different. Since the set of colors which are “red” are fewer than the set of colors which are “green” then there is no way that what I experience as red is the same as what you experience as green. Artists use colors to convey emotion and are able to achieve this with many many different observers. Warm colors are warm, and cool colors are cool. There may be different levels of sensitivity but in my experience this can be somewhat trained into an observer though no doubt there are outliers who have a unique sensitivity to color differences.

So there are objective factors which align with subjective factors let’s say 90% of the time, which strongly supports the idea that we experience color more or less the same way. The trouble is not that subjectivity and objectivity are irreconcilable, in fact it is when we fail to reconcile them that our troubles begin. In my opinion, this is a huge problem that creates all kinds of issues when we try to relate to each other; it may be the most prominent philosophical problem of our age. Luckily it is fairly easily remedied with a slight change in the way we think about subject and object. Its useful to separate them sometimes but we need to be able to reunify them, which just takes practice in my experience.

There’s a rare disease that turns peoples faces into demon faces called prosopometamorphopsia that can be partially relieved by observing things under different colored light.

Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.

I don’t think it’s a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.

However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:

1. Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.

2. Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn’t gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.

3. Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.

So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.

So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I’ve become fond of the concept of “armed nonviolent defense.” An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.

This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding “correct” usages of violence and non violence doesn’t extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.

The last big fall in the price of bitcoin, in December '22 was caused by a shift in the dynamics of mining where it became more expensive to mine new btc than what the coin was actually worth. Not only did this plunge the price of crypto it also demolished demand for expensive graphics chips which are repurposed to run the process-heavy complex math used in mining. Cheaper chips, cascading demand and server space that was dedicated to mining related activities threatened to wipe out profit margins in multiple tech sectors.

6 months later, Chat GPT is tolled out by Open AI. The previous limitations on processing capabilities were gone, server space was cheap and the tech was abundant. So all these tech sectors at risk of losing their ass in an overproduction driven recession, now had a way to pump the price of their services and this was to pump AI.

Additionally around this time the world was recovering from covid lockdowns. Increased demand for online services was dwindling (exacerbating the other crisis outlined above) as people were returning to work and spending more time being social IRL rather than using services. Companies had hired lots of new workers: programmers, tech infrastructure workers, etc., yo meet the exploding demand during covid. Now they had too many workers and their profits were being threatened.

The Federal reserve had raised interest rates to stifle continued hiring of new employees. The solution that the fed had come up with in order to stifle inflation was to encourage laying off workers end masse – what Marxists might call restoring the reserve army of labor, or relative surplus population – which was substantially depleted during the pandemic. But business owners were reluctant to do this, the tight labor market of the last few years had made business owners and managers skittish about letting people go.

A basic principle at play here, is that new technology is introduced for two reasons only: to sell as a new commodity and (what we are principally concerned with) replacing workers with machines. Another basic principle is that the capitalist system has to have a certain percentage of its population unemployed and hyper exploited in order to keep wages low.

So there was a confluence of incentives here. 1. Inexpensive server space and chips which producers were eager to restore to profitability (or else face drastic consequences) 2. A need to lay off workers in order to stop inflation 3. Incentives for businesses to do so.

Laying off relatively highly paid technical/intellectual labor is a low hanging fruit in this whole equation, and the roll out of AI did just that. Hundreds of thousands of highly paid workers were laid off across a variety of sectors, assured that AI would create so much more efficiency and cut out the need for so many of these workers. So they rolled out this garbage tech that doesn’t work, but everyone in the industry, the media, the government needs it to work, or else they face a massive economic crisis, which had already started with inflation.

At the end of the day its just a massive grift, pushed out to compensate for excessive overproduction driven by another massive grift (cryptocurrency) combined with economic troubles that arose from an insufficient government response to a pandemic that killed millions of people; and rather than take other measures to stifle inflation our leaders in global finance decided to shunt the consequences onto workers, as always. The excuse given was AI, which is nothing more than a predictive text algorithm attached to a massive database created by exploited workers overseas and stolen IPs, and a fuck load of processing power.

My friend is a medical librarian and stumbled across two full real skeletons being thrown away, she took their skulls. So yeah ethically sourced and she actually had a website where you could order different human bones left over from cadavers. So they’re not that hard to source, a lot of people donate their body to science, which is good.

Do you have a source for this? I have long speculated that the pyramids were a massive make-work program, I just never bought the idea that there were just tons of slaves doing that work. Obviously Ancient Egypt was a slave society, but where did all of the slaves come from? If Egyptians like enslaved an army or like another city that was so massive that they needed to find extra work for them, building megalithic structures, etc., how do they make sure the slaves don’t revolt? They would need many more slave masters, more slave catchers, etc., and where do those people come from? The political economy of Pyramids being built by slaves doesn’t add up. They must have been excess labor. I’m no expert but the back of the napkin math always seemed really fishy to me.

Edit: oh I see the "fall of civilizations recommendation further down, I’ll check it out

Why are we assuming we don’t have free will? We do. Its not total freedom, our freedom is contingent on existing circumstances, but hard determinism is easily disprovable.

The idea that there is no free will is a mind fuck that keeps you from questioning your reality. You might as well ask, “assuming the earth is flat, why does the stick disappear on the horizon?”

Omg I remember having this argument with my friends. “Well there are some home remedies that work, modern medicine doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge” OK but homeopathic medicine just means its water, plain water that remembers being able to cure a disease, its fake “Yeah but they’re not all like that some of them work, my grandma would use a half of an onion to take the pain out of bee stings” jfc I’m literally not talking about that, I’m talking about water sold as medicine that is covered by most major insurance! look it up!

Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker.

– Karl Marx, On Free Trade

On the one hand, i love to see people questioning their mythology; on the other its nice of you to join us in the modern world, Aaron

as counter protestors.

Or controlled op

Lemmy is social media. Reddit is sociopath media