/lit/ - Literature

>>9822908
>What is your definition of "meme"?
good question

i mean there is a horizon beyond which it only makes sense to start talking about quantum physics &c. an attractive & repulsive universe.

memes are something like the gaps and the splits in the real that prevent us from going fully Paul Atreides. imho the world, or at least that slice of it that i voluntarily try to stick to, is thoroughly explained by D&G.

but everything connects. and indeed this is another reason why i like those guys: because - and baudrillard knew this also, and nietzsche, and land, and warshow, and fucking icycalm also, and many others - knew that *being a critic was yesterday's news.* you just can't do it. you're *kidding* yourself if you think you can give yourself a wide-angle lens big enough to see everything, and *least* of all, from a *fixed position.* see also foucault here.

a meme, then, in one sense, is a kind of a *concept* - but it is also a cultural by-product, a piece of art, a medium, much else...it's not like i have all this shit worked out on paper, or anything. any answer i give you here will be woefully under substantiated, and if our guy from the philosophy department is still reading this he is surely going to want to leap in and say, See I Told You So, What a Hack, and all of this. it's not even like he would be wrong either. i'm just thinking out loud, and seeing what comes up. i don't script any of this, obv.

whatever the meme is, it is how culture talks to itself, and that to which we are bound. semiotics and so on, roland barthes, many others. its just that it's very hard to kind of isolate yourself on a plateau from which you can view all of this shit like a guy in a laboratory. we are fatally bound up with that which interests us. and writing *critically,* well...about that. if anything i prefer *valorization* - let's talk about what's *great* about a meme, rather than what is lacking.

it was andre basin's rule of cinema as well: *never review movies that you hate.* that's fucking stupendously good advice. review the good - but not, of course, just to be a shill for advertisement. i feel like i need to explicate all of this sometimes even though it is ofc perfectly obvious. anyways.

>mportant point. He's abrasive but he preaches love. Christian imagery (Yeezus, Saint Pablo) juxtaposed with str8 hedonism. Family adoration with hyper self-obsession. Black pride but DJT fanboy. It's hard to make sense of any of it. But somehow beauty is a byproduct, along with the mess and the spectacle and the obsession with capitalism. He thinks utopia is possible, soon, but he doesn't know how to get there.
exactly. how the fuck can anyone hate on this? we should all dream so big.

>Why doesn't /lit/ like him? Or find him interesting?
eventually. this is the Great Fourth Turning, and all. revolts & the modern world. maybe things are still possible.

>inb4 hip hop isn't poetry/art
battle rap did nothing wrong

>>9777719

this right here is the deal. mcluhan nailed it: when you turn the whole world into media & communicable energy good luck holding to the real. one of the sharpest critics of the society thus produced was baudrillard, but he's so fucking smooth you still have to work around his marxism *and* his nietzscheanism to realize he's still only reifying mcluhan
>and without the catholicism

but metaphysics is *one* thing and *wat do* in that world is another. the tao cuts both ways. if you just try and harmonize yourself with the process and derive your political conclusions from the metaphysics of it you get nicholas j land
>j?

you get cybernetics. you get acceleration. you get all of that

good scene? bad scene? makes a difference? makes no difference?

metaphysics > politics, but still you gotta eat. so best just to talk about how fucking batshit crazy all of this is before we put on a trump hat.

so here's my question: education/advice/counseling/therapy. this kind of stuff. fix the state? or fix the individual? don't fix anything?

this is why peterson works. clean your room is a workable imperative. you cannot ultimately express everything. and you can't be The Great Lawgiver
>or the Hortator or morrowind

good thing /lit/ is here i tells ya