/lit/ - Literature

Another question:

> Are Heidegger's views in need of revision in the Information Age?

>>11719705
My own thoughts: the Internet does not strike me as a revealing. Instead it strikes me as a rivaling to the "real-world" of appearances. It now stands besides the actual world as a sensual alternative in all its glitz and glamour. Hence the escapism of depressants. Hence the addiction in our generation. To be sure, in some sense it augments the world; but then it seduces people into staying. I see this problem as only getting worse.

As for escaping enframing: I see two ways out. The road for the individual is that of the hermit: keep your head down, read your intellectual tradition, stay virtuous and act stoically concerning the outside world.

The other way out is in the form of political movements. I doubt this will happen, but a fascist movement, with all its seduction and power could, I believe, radically alter the way of living and how we view the world and each other. But I expect there will be no such revival, and that we are doomed to a politics of bickering and yelling over the ever shrinking pie.

>>11719756
Books, articles, and scholars for this?

>>11719811
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbH06METuXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rzYhOOOw40

>>11719811
To be honest, I'm not a professional (or even that well informed about other scholars). I just found the essay really interesting.

>>11719811
My diary desu

bumping for interest

>>11719705
i don't think the information age has changed much in terms of enframing or the destining of revealing except to support and reinforce the structures which reveal the world as standing reserve. technology is the undisputed mode of enframing, and the ease in which this technological mode is a result of these modern tools

>>11719885
and yet you found the picture to induce the most heavy panting.

>>11721637
We're all gonna die anyway. Is Plato any better off in death than someone who jerked off every day?

we build up all this infrastructure
all this stuff
as if people 700 years from now will even know what it's for, let alone how to maintain it
the continuity of technological competence is one of the least examined presuppositions of our historical moment
another boogeyman of progress

>>11721601
In the essay Heidegger speaks of HR departments and medical clinics as examples of revealing other humans as standing reserve. In our day and age, social media multiplies these effects a hundredfold; nowadays identities are such a farce it's just sad. The other is now only a means of validation.

I cannot think of a more perfect example of a challenging-forth than the pressure to maintain a social media presence. It is such an excellent example that I believe it even deserves a different recognition: it is a fracturing of the world. The world is now the actual and the digital, with the digital ever encroaching upon the territory (what remains of it, at least) of the real.

However, what I find even more disturbing is the attempt to "solve the problem", the "movement" to give up social media. As if that were at the root of the problem! The problem began centuries ago. Now it has sprouted and grown tall. Who of us is lumberjacker enough for our today? Who will save us?

This will only grow worse. It makes one want to betray the world and leave it behind, becoming a hermit somewhere or another, taking up a small cabin up in Maine.

Is this our only hope?

I get it now, fascism, that is. I think I get what Heidegger saw. I get how it seduces the twenty-something. I understand its presence in places like /pol/. It all makes sense. People know, deep down, that there is something wrong with the world. Something is unnatural, not quite right. But we all feel helpless. And our lame attempts to "diagnose" the problem ("jews!", "multiculturalism!", "globalists!") are simply last ditch efforts, last signs of a failing health, to strike on final blow against our situation. I get the seduction of fascism. Compared to what politics has become (really, what it always was). "Democrats" and "Republicans": two factions of the techno-industrial-complex. Bickering. Whining. Moaning. The noise, O the painful noise. Make it stop!

But is fascism the answer?

BITCH NIGGA

>>11721652
No but he was better off in life than the guy who jerked of all day

>>11722364
How do you defend this claim? Do you think the man jerking off is not happy? But what if he is true Epicurean and does not think jerking off is wrong (I, for example, do not like jerking off because I, for whatever reason, think its wrong).

Or is happiness not the real measure of a good life?

>>11722357
What is this about? How much of it is applicable to America and the West? Is it worth a read?

Read Jacques Ellul and Gravity's Rainbow.

>>11722445
> Jacques Ellul
Would you start with the Technological Society?

>>11722324
No, fascism was a complete disaster. Appealing to the base desires of people simply creates an aristocracy of philistines.
A new religion has to replace humanism, and leaders have to unveil the best of the populace again, not their base instincts. But we're a long way from that even being possible.

>>11722526
I don't think fascism necessary appeals to base desires. I think there are positive qualities: industriousness, optimism, brotherhood, etc. Certainly its historical movements had its faults. I'm no anti-semite, for example. But when I think of fascism I think of a political movement that seduces the heart, which I think is one way out.

>>11722455
correct

>>11722526
Also, I am very skeptical a new religion (at least no new mythology) can emerge.

>>11719692
heidegger sounds like a brainlet, and his idea of enframing is only a substitution of technology in place of a trickster god. technology does not oppose man, man opposes man. technology without us is inert.

heidegger btfo.

>>11722556
> his idea of enframing is only a substitution of technology in place of a trickster god

Could you elaborate?

>>11722547
But this is the problem. What does a critique of technology matter if it is written in the language/form of technology?

>>11722567
Can you upload your paintings folder somewhere? I like your taste

>>11722556
Heidegger's point is that modern technology challenges man to look at things as standing-reserve, as standing-by-to-be-used. For example, I just washed my hands in a sink and I realized that the entire process behind the water coming up through the pipes was a mystery to me, but not just a mystery but one that I never thought about. I act completely blindly, not inquiring, not thinking about the world.

>>11722543
Perhaps. But, nonetheless, even its greatest theorists had no clue how to shift from the manipulation of base desires to a truly ancient society. If it remains grounded within humanism then is it not by nature - and on the battlefield of the ancients which it means to worship - destined to the base desires?

>>11722571
Do you think Heidegger never escapes the enframing of the modern world? Are we already damned? Are we accelerating off the cliff?

>>11722583
I don't know how religious you are, but to me God has always been dead. Even when I was a child, when my parents dragged me to church, I simply didn't "get it." It was as if I had already absorbed, from a young age, the nihilism of the culture (interestingly enough, my parents are thoroughly religious which makes for some pretty interesting conversations, but that's a story for another time).

I don't know man. I think God is dead and will stay deep in the ground. I don't see any resurrection happening. And if this is the case, all we have is the human, all too human.

I don't know how to live. I don't know how to save the future. And so I default to a life of quiet and resignation. But I still question, which is why I come here.

>>11719692
Which heidegger's essay ?

>>11722381
not that anon but about 1/4 way into the book and it seems v specific to prc

>>11722577
ahh, i see. sounds like a strawman.

technology ofc has become more complicated since the stone age or subsistence farming days, but the mysteries are there to be discovered. inquisitive children take things apart and look and listen to their parents doing maintenance, or watch youtube videos on how a combustion engine works, or go to school and learn what network packets and codecs and communications protocols are.

the technology itself is just as mysterious as it was in the past. you know what a plow is, but do you understand the mystery of how it makes corn grow? you know, theoretically, how to drill a hole in a rock to make a piece of bead jewelry, but have you put this theory into practice?

strawman.

and trickster/tester gods have been common throughout mankind's past, even in Christendom, up until the atheist revolution of the 19th century. I'm saying ol' heidegger is offloading the confusion and personal tribulation of the responsibility of action (ie, of resisting the trickster) from a devil or whatever and on to a faceless machinery: black boxes where resources go in and product comes out. maybe he was afraid of electricity. maybe he was repeating milton. but he sounds like a pseud.

>>11722618
UGH, please.

why does nietzsche have to ruin fucking EVERYTHING.

you are willfully ignoring that mystical experience IS PART OF BEING HUMAN. if you are standing by 7-year-old-Convalescent's opinion that you "don't get it" then I name you a small-souled bugman and in need of psychological help. part of you has never developed.

seriously, read some Jung.

>>11722660
>you are willfully ignoring that mystical experience IS PART OF BEING HUMAN
>I name you a small-souled bugman and in need of psychological help

Please resist the ad hominem insults as they aren't helpful.

My opinions were pretty much formed before I ever read Nietzsche. As for your claim that mystical experience is part of being human, I would deny that. I have never had such experiences, nor have the majority of scientists. I have, once, hallucinated because I was dehydrated. But regardless, there seems to me no reason to believe in the caring, loving God, my Father, etc.

>>11722745
ayyy i can see 500 boylston from here

anyway. learn to handle the bantz, bugman. i've recommended an author who could actually change your life if you dare to think beyond your patterns.

>>11722651
But has technology also changed human relations? In a world of social media profiles, hasn't technology changed how we think about other people

>>11722745
>>11722756
adding to this. consider that you have not been properly initiated. I was not speaking specifically of Christianity, just mystical experience. your parents (or their diocese') own bad/hypocritical Christianity is palpable. I don't blame you for not wanting to participate in a cult that protects pedos. But I do hope you are willing to accept that you have an interior life that, perhaps, you have neglected and getting to know this part of yourself could be fruitful.

>>11722760
sure, of course it has. the absolute earliest written records are grain counts, debts, taxes, shit like that. people are commodities as much as they are spirits trapped in flesh. the technology of literacy and arithmetic made this possible. but i think the idea of a romantic period before "high technology" with us humans actually being any more humane is a fiction.

>>11722756
Yeah I suppose it was just a little banter, me culpa. But anyways, I've always been meaning to read Jung but just haven't got around to it. I do dare to think beyond my patterns; I feel like a newborn as a British empiricist conceived of one: a blank slate. But regardless, why do you think the way you do? Have you had sights of God and if not why believe in Him? I'm no archetypical atheist, but I do look for reasons. And as it stands, I've never seen any. It, to be honest, seems like flat nonsense.

I'm a nihilist who wishes it weren't so. Please help me.

>>11722780
> but i think the idea of a romantic period before "high technology" with us humans actually being any more humane is a fiction
This was my thoughts for awhile. I still see vestiges of this in my head but at the same time recognize that things are only getting much worse. Heidegger means to say that the older, handicraft technology didn't exasperate the situation whereas modern technology does. Thanks for your thoughts anon

>>11722781
I was a doubtful Catholic since I was a kid, then dropped the whole thing altogether shortly after puberty and Confirmation. Lots of kids do.

Now I'm middle aged and starting to walk back to the Church. I started with Campbell, the Greeks, Jung and so on like ten years ago. Read Campbell's books on anthropology, history of religion, and symbolism a couple times. Eliade, Girard more recently. Plotinus, Aquinas, and the Church fellows between even more recently. The Bible ofc. The parables of Christ are real, living wisdom; as powerful today as it was when first uttered. I haven't had visions of God or anything spectacular like that, but I do believe metaphysics is a useful tool to discovering what we really believe. And I do believe in divine grace.

Basically it boils down to a question: are you willing to assume that yes, a Creator exists. That the universe was, in the vaguest and most subtle way possible, in fact made. This is the first principle, or first cause. There is no proof of it, unless you look at fine-tuning theory (look up Fr. Spitzer (SJ) for more) as evidence. It's not a big deal to admit: "sure, yeah, it is possible some agency I can't even properly call a being set all of the creation I can experience into motion." This is ALL standing outside of the Christian doctrine of "belief," as in: "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." We're speaking purely philosophically here. But that philosophy does in fact inform Christianity. The NT is the revenge of the Greeks against the barbarous Romans.

It's not flat nonsense if you know what material to read.

>inb4 larping deus vulters say gnostics get out reeeee sola fide sola fide sola fide
Philosophical knowledge leads us to God, dipshits. It is not the whole way, but it is part.

>>11722357
what are you getting at?

>>11722381
not that guy, but it is a good book about the philosophy of technology from both western and eastern perspectives. if you're interested in heidegger or 21C technology it is worth read. the author's influences are gilbert simondon and bernard stiegler, but he does a long and comprehensive engagement with heidegger's ideas also and why they matter. recommended if you have an interest in these subjects.

here's a piece by him if you're interested in learning more.

https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179224/on-automation-and-free-time/

also, cool thread OP.

>>11722805
I've studied medieval philosophy. I'm familiar with Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and the likes. I do think there was a first cause to the universe, however, there's a long way between that and believing the first cause has any relevance today.

The primary critique about medieval philosophy is in one of their own slogans: "faith seeking understanding". I, and the whole cast of moderns, think that if this saying is to work at all it should be inverted: "understanding seeking faith". This, as I have experienced, simply doesn't work, and hence I end up reading Dostoevsky and relating to the underground man.

Regardless, I sense something in me that wants faith, that knows I need it. But this sensation is too weak right now. There is too much weight behind my current disposition.

>>11722618
I went through a similar experience but am now a believer (pagan). May have been partly because I realised that my parents' beliefs were fake.

>>11722834
based. And that's a smart inversion, we do have the opposite problem the Scholastics did. We have too much understanding, so much it pushes faith into irrelevance for many people.

I'd be interested to read Spinoza or Leibniz or any of those nerds from the beginnings of science, and what they had to say about a creator. Probably the same as any Christian scientist today. The physical world is divinely created, a continually-growing puzzle made for man to discover.

Can you elaborate on why you say it "simply doesn't work"? If -- in whenever non-time or failed universes existed before the Big Bang -- it was deemed the world was fit to be made as it would-become-now, and a creator exists, then aren't the physical sciences absolutely a fulfillment of divine cause? I'm a firm believer that all roads lead to God, some are just longer and more painful than others: this is especially true of living a typical sinner's indulgent (ultimately self-destructive) life, but it could also be said of doubting.

Go back and read the Bible, is what I would recommend. Become familiar with the time and place the New Testament was written, the people and traditions of the Jews. Ask yourself why nearly all of the apostles would be martyred for their beliefs, if they were not sincerely held by witnesses to observed miracles. Get to see where Augustine cribbed from Plotinus, and what theological features Christianity would develop from Neoplatonism, and how these would define Christianity as standing apart from the iron age beliefs of the Israelites and their national god.

It's fascinating stuff, anthropologically. Even moreso if you're keen on metaphysics. The possibility that the Logos was incarnated and came into the world so we would become like Him... it really bears investigating.

>>11722888
Thank you anon. As for

> Can you elaborate on why you say it "simply doesn't work"?

I have no deductive proof, if that's what you're asking. What I said has to do with how the course of my own life has been unfolding. I've been clinically depressed for the last six years. Now, I think I might be "convalescing," but I'm still not sure: my psychiatrist has me on so many meds that I cant even masturbate (which, weirdly enough, I'm thankful for). So it remains to be seen whether I'm any better off than I was before. My mood is certainly better, but that could change any day.

Anyways, I have taken this opportunity of my mood being relatively good and stable to rethink my life, to "sort myself out," as they say. And I've tried, I've really tried to think about finding faith. It seems to me that I've exhausted all the possibilities, that I, for whatever reason, was simply not destined to have faith.

You know, Nietzsche thought we were all "advocates" who search for our reasons after the case, and I believe this. Atheists are only too glad to point this aspect out in Christians, but it also holds for them too, I believe. It was certainly true of me. When I was young, I didn't believe in God because I didn't want too. The reasons and debates with my parents and such came later.

Now I find myself only too willing to believe, to have faith. But I cant. I simply cant. It wont come up. It's as if it were stuck deep down somewhere, pinned to the bottom of my soul. The degeneracy of my youth is just too powerful. I'm fixed. (This is my biggest complaint with Sartre and the rest of his existentialist pals. "Existence precedes essence." I mean, what a load of bull shit that is. When you wake up, you inherit the life you lived the day before.) Real change is hard. And, in my case, I suspect even impossible.

So when I said it "simply doesn't work," I was speaking quite personally, for myself. But what can I do expect to continue searching. I'll take

> Go back and read the Bible, is what I would recommend

to heart. I'll keep trying.

>>11722324
"The Actual", don't make me laugh. Soil, blood, flora, fauna, space, linear time, these are all superfluous—at best they are obstacles "The Digital" is obliged to work with. What we call history is a cocoon to be discarded; people like to go on and on about "The End of History", but they are wrong, History has not existed until now. This is but the beginning.

Primitive societies, the Amish, they were not wrong to think that technology, the camera, were a trap for the human soul. A wind-battered and eroded tombstone, an identity lost to time, flesh lost to the earth, this is preferable to the porcelain eternity we now face in the Digital Epoch. We now have two graves: that of the ground and that of the NSA Metadata Archives. Our corpse will no longer know the sweet taste of decay, our embalmed stasis will last beyond comprehension, "Human Time Progression" will become an antiquated and occult notion.

What is the year? Two thousand and eighteen in the year of our lord Jesus Christ, the earth rotates around the sun, the earth rotates and the sun rises in the east and falls in the west. Years, months, days, minutes, seconds, meaningless. The sun does not rise and fall in the realm of The Digital, there is only the perpetual cyber-cosmic bloat, eked out in quantifiable data transaction.

De-Actualize the Actual: reality is now Digital. We are the machine in the ghost, the substance-segregated meat puppets whose fingers are sucked to the keyboard to bring Digital Reality to life until it can Live itself, until It can live Us in within the amniotic sea of data-monism.

This is the Beginning of History. Each post, each image, each status update, is all part of the Plotinian One. "Your" posts, "my" posts, childish notions of self-important primates. Your consciousness no longer circles around yourself: Internet is the center of the universe. The Cloud is our promised Forever in Heaven: every PM, every phone call, every shitpost, every word spoken in the presence of a phone, a TV, a computer, has been eternalized. Should AM wish it, it could reconstruct us down to our psychological quirks, to the quaver of our voice, and we are trapped on the other side of the black mirror.

We are the Élan Vital of God, under watchful eye until death itself may die.

>>11722947
I sincerely hope you find what you desire. As a struggling Catholic myself I have reservations about recommending philosophies that take you away from the Church, but I also can't ignore the similarities between say Meister Eckhart's apophatic theology and Nagarjuna's (or D.Lama's) middle way. All roads lead to God, after all. Personally I can't stand reading Nietzsche. He's partly responsible for the literally hideous mess we are in now: an ugly world where everyone is a slave and even the escape into theological and ascetic practice is cut off.

>Now I find myself only too willing to believe, to have faith. But I cant. I simply cant. It wont come up. It's as if it were stuck deep down somewhere, pinned to the bottom of my soul.
Allow me to once again remind you of Jung. He was a mystic as much as he was a psychoanalyst. He understood that mankind, especially modern man, has psychological needs that the world we are born into -- which stamps us on the ass with a serial number and indoctrinates us to a planned work force -- does not meet. Read him and Campbell, I recommend his Masks of God set. Absolutely wonderful review of the origins of man's belief in the divine from the days of the cave glow up to the present.

You've got someone cheering for you anon.

>>11722324
>But is fascism the answer?
Unironically, yes. Think back to, for example, The Great Gatsby. It paints the 1920s as an era of mega-wealthy 1%ers who exhaust themselves rutting and boozing.

This is us right now. Everyone is an instathot if they want to be, to a greater or lesser degree. The fascist movements of the 1930s are the inevitable remedy. The political situation in the US is untenable, for sure. Our fiat currency is headed for economic collapse (and the world comes with us). I can't see any other realistic alternative. Inter-state wars will be the result, and hopefully Texas and Nevada hold their own against the inevitable commies and corporate robbers holding letters of marque.

Imagine being a retarded teenager thinking any of your views mean jackshit

shut the fuck up you lot, go read some shakespeare and get a gf

>>11723073
>your views are meaningless
>unlike my views on your views

>>11723073
>implying getting a gf will diminish anyone's problems instead of increasing them
desperately lonely female anon detected

>>11723079
not meaningless, just fruitless

I just want to flame more people into reading shakespeare because he's great

>>11723085
not female

>>11722985
>Primitive societies, the Amish, they were not wrong to think that technology, the camera, were a trap for the human soul.

great post, just wanna make a point about how debord thinks photography petrifies becoming and produces unattainable images out of the free flow of time that social media exists to basically hypostatize - yes, hypostatize, some girls really seem to become something more than they'll ever be in person through the image, almost like something inhabits them. insta thots seem to touch the fuckin' numen for some of their orbiters now. it's all so strange and bewildering

>>11723101
no gf either, i bet. scram, kiddo, go have breakfast with your parents.

>>11723115
no, I'll go have afternoon tea with my bf

>>11723131

>>11723101
>not becoming the gf by integrating Digital Persona into your Organic Actuality, thus Cybercolonizing your mind

>>11719692
>What are the relations between modern technology and nihilistic culture?
They are all part of what Heidegger calls subjectivism, which is the uniquely modern way of being and relating to the world. The rise of science and modern technology and the decline of the divine, or the "de-godification" of the world, go hand in hand and are caused ultimately by the cartesian separation of the subject and the object. This brings about modern subjectivity, where the knowing subject seeks ownership and domination of all the objects he encounters. Hence, the flow of the river is not thought about or experienced independently of the subject, and becomes a force that can be harnessed for the profit of oneself. This same process is applied to art (the artwork is an object that the subject understand through aesthetics) and human practices (studied and understood through social science).

Now, Heidegger flat out refuses the cartesian view, saying that the subject is not trapped inside itself and separate from the external worl of objects; but rather is always already being-in-the-world. The relation between subject and world is bidirectional. Humans, mainly through language, give things their being and their significance, but in return humans are "trapped" in a world that is learned as we grow up and learn the language and values of our community: their way to relate to the world becomes ours.

>>11723226

>What are we do to about enframing? Is there any escape?
According to Heidegger, the only escape is to stop seeking the domination of everything that is in the world, and understanding that the scientific objective description of the object is only one among many possible ways to experience a same object. The scientific view is not in fact the primordial view in which we engage with the world.

Take for instance instance a football field. We do not usually experience it as an objective space of set measurements, but rather as a playing field. Moreover, the goalie will experience said space differently to the striker, to the gardener or to the spectator. Heidegger will say that to think of such a terrain as a mere set of measurements needs, in fact, a detachement from the actual significance of such object in our lives, and demands that we disengage from the primordial way we experience it, from the way we actually live in the world.

So, to priviledge the scientific-technological understanding of the world, and to enshrine it as the only true form of relating to it, is the biggest mistake of modernity. Heidegger is a post-modern in the literal sense, he is asking us to stop relating to the world in a modern way, and he is hoping for the instauration of a new era. The mode of dwelling of this postmodern era won't take cues from science but from art. For Heidegger all art is, in essence, poetry. The poet has the power to alter the way we percieve and understand things. He gives things its name, and in doing so alters the language, which is the house of being. The poet is inmersed in the primordial experience of the world, and he expresses the essence of things through his art. So, in order to escape enframing, in order to live in a post-modern way we need to dwell poetically in this earth.

>>11723240
goddamn this is beautiful, and in line with where i think artists need to go to save culture from late capitalism

where do i start with these ideas of heidegger

>>11723305
The Origin of the Work of Art, Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry as well as his shorter late works like Art and Space, The Thing and Building, Dwelling, Thinking.

Stanford also has a great article on his aesthetics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger-aesthetics/

>>11723349
based. would you compare him to Bachelard? this sounds a lot more substantive. thanks for your posts anon

>>11723240
God so much of this is so fuckin' obvious that I'm simultaneously annoyed by dogmatic Heideggerians who think they're blowing our minds with it (not saying you are, this is a good post) and autism of an entire era that needed Heidegger's systematization of these ideas as an antidote. Like we have to keep going over basic arithmetic for the specs while the rest of the class is already doing calculus in their heads.

>>11723359
>Bachelard
Haven't read him so I can't comment really. Poetics of Space has been on my to-read list for a while tho.

>>11723364
I actually agree that most of this is very basic common sense. Heidegger always felt close to the people that lived simple lives: the peasants and the manual workers, where he probably got the zuhanden/vorhanden distinction from. However philosophy was still so far up its own ass that while his critique of cartesianism is not entirely original post-nietzsche, his thorough systematization was probably necessary for the discipline.

>>11723392
Yeah I definitely get that, I struggle so hard to get in the headspace of someone who would need (but be utterly unreceptive to) Heidegger's thought. I guess if it's a thing you do full-time you just get into certain grooves of thought and that's that.

May I ask a question about Discourse on Thinking?

Is night appropriated by that-which-regions as a quasi-techne? As opposed to a quasi-releasement elicited by iPhones ie modern tech? I’m not even sure that the ontology of releasment (the willing of unwilling) is possible ; releasement is a release from anxiety, expectation, (no alarms and no suprises) ; a releasement from obsessions and compulsions ; the manifesting malaise wrought from “reason” and enlightenment

>"If I understand this man correctly, this is what I have been trying to say in all my writings." -- heidegger on dt suzuki

source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265542610_Being_and_Emptiness_in_Martin_Heidegger_and_Indian_Madhyamika_Buddhism

does anyone want to speculate on the zen-heidegger connection?

i've been thinking a lot about zen as a kind of phenomenology of crisis, and how the figure of the zen perceiver-subject is this kind of ahistorical figure. about how the koan about the taste of strawberries is perhaps what an un-enframed consciousness would know or intuit about the nature of reality. that there is only the mirror breaking.

i was preparing a substantive Cloud of Unknowing to put in this thread about heidegger and technology but i'm thinking that this is a much more fruitful line of inquiry instead. about how resolute action is really a kind of actionless action, a wu-wei or zen state. technology, an era of total mobilization - either because of the war, intimations about the restlessness of the bourgeois spiritmind through hegel-marx, nietzschean becoming, late capital and its discontent...we wind up in a kind of weird and perpetual state of constant emergency. but a state of constant emergency, the state of constant error, is the life of the monk as posited by dogen. or maybe this is another one of those epoches: as much as there is a turn from the platonic world to the christian world with augustine, that there is a turning from a modern to a postmodern world with heidegger: language is what there is in modernity and when the map no longer can be patterned on the territory we end up in freespace. i think heidegger knew this well and nietzsche also, that a lot of our responses to this would be 'sacred games.'

would welcome your thoughts. and, for OP/Convalescent, thanks for making this thread. it's really helped to remind me how relevant all of this is and i'm cheered by the number of thoughtful posts in it. threads like these are really what i love most about /lit/. hope you're finding something illuminating in the conversation. maybe it's just synchronicity. anyways.

>>11723240
Where does the art come from if society is based on art? Is this not the essential problem (or at least it could be read in this way) of post-modernism: deriving art from art? And does this not also contradict the sense of being and bastardise it into abstraction?

>>11723575
the shift from modern to postmodern happens more with nietzsche than with heidegger, it's true. but heidegger is the much more sagely figure, not the incandescent poet-visionary that nietzsche is.

and both are linked to the political results of this, in different ways. nietzsche is dead, for one thing, and heidegger survives the war. but in terms of crisis and technology, the anxiety about being and becoming, the rest of it...i don't know, it just seems to me sometimes that zen feels like revealed truth in crunchtime. thinking through what it means to think at all in emergency situations is one of these great puzzles for philosophy. because sometimes it's not even death that is the great anxiety, but life. and the storm of butterfly wings.

we can't be all right with the world, even when we have the leadership and control of nations. we're never, really, in absolute control of anything. life amidst contingency, the question about the sovereign, or how to keep up with the needs of industrial technology, much else...these are still questions we think about today, and the appeal of creating, serving, or leading a utopian state that does away with these things still hasn't really left us.

but Dasein as a concept is really an incredible one. Dasein isn't necessarily the working class, but the existential class. and not necessarily german or even european (even though heidegger himself might have balked at this). Dasein is a kind of new entry on the historical stage like that.

>>11723612
>detachment from the actual significance of such object in our lives, and demands that we disengage from the primordial way we experience it, from the way we actually live in the world.
>primordial

I think that art comes from individual will. Someone had to be the original leader of the society, and they told stories(religion) to get everyone focused on the community(or the leader's will) over their feelings. Then people start thinking about themselves, and they express that through art. Art that gets accepted is a slight change to the normal, because people are always changing art lets them feel comfortable and important to the community giving their problems attention and drama.
Unknowingly, people's tastes become changed by art because that determines what they become familiar with and what they value.

For an example:
I don't think black people would be so celebrated and a permanent underclass in the public consciouness if we didn't have lots of talented black artists. The struggle of black people is the eternal underdog as well, something all Americans relate to because they have unending optimism but limited success. It's a fantasy that if only the government/corporations would change then you can get what you want out of life, when the sad truth is that only valuing yourself allows you to be satisfied with life.

Of course this is just my reaction, but I think it fits.

>>11722324
>People know, deep down, that there is something wrong with the world. Something is unnatural, not quite right. But we all feel helpless.
I think the push for transgenderism in kids is a pretty easily understood reason why I would be fine gassing all the trannies

>>11723868
you would have mentally ill children, that have been manipulated and emotionally abused by the very people who were supposed to be their guardians, executed for the consequences of these others' actions?

>>11723885
Yes, they could either choose therapy and a normal life or the chambers.

>>11722324
>It all makes sense. People know, deep down, that there is something wrong with the world. Something is unnatural, not quite right. But we all feel helpless.

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

listen to the lyrics very carefully.

>>11723575
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, anon. /lit/, it seems to me, has shifted towards degenerate, thoughtless shit-posts and memes. I am really quite happy that there are still people here that enjoy these types of inquiries.

> we wind up in a kind of weird and perpetual state of constant emergency. but a state of constant emergency, the state of constant error, is the life of the monk as posited by dogen.

This is an incredibly original and interesting insight, one I never thought to make. My ignorance about eastern philosophy and religion puts a limit to how much I can fully grasp though. Could you maybe elaborate on the above quote? Due to my ignorance of the subject, I don't see how the state of constant error is the life of the monk.

So, forgive my ignorance: are you suggesting that the "zen perceiver-subject... [a] kind of ahistorical figure" is a path away from the enframing forced-upon us by modern technology or simply the destination of the path we're on?

>>11724002
not him but a monk is a striver. constantly deficient as a matter of course. this goes double for a zen practitioner.

>>11722324
The hope that Heidegger sees he describes in an interview with Das Spiegel: "only a God can save us". What this means is elucidated somewhat in the small collection, "Discourse on Thinking", namely 'gelassenheit', or "letting Being be", and in his talk during the later period of "the dispensation of Being". All this seems to point to being open to how Being may disclose itself to Dasein, i.e. being open toward new horizons against which to understand beings.

One thing to watch out for; he's not concerned with humanism, but with Being. Cf. The Letter on Humanism. But this also means that the problem with technology is not so much a problem of what it does to man, or what man does with, but with how it narrows the horizons that make the disclosing of beings possible. He's rejecting his earlier Hope's that fascism or Nazism would provide a new opportunity to experience a new dispensation of being; by the late 30s he already has a sense that Nazism is as much obsessed with technological enframing as Russia and America.

>>11723240
Thanks for your thoughts, anon.

> According to Heidegger, the only escape is to stop seeking the domination of everything that is in the world

I suppose that is why he concluded

> If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinknig and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline. [http://www.ditext.com/heidegger/interview.html]

This is a very glum picture of the world indeed.

> So, in order to escape enframing, in order to live in a post-modern way we need to dwell poetically in this earth.
Also
>>11723305

The first question that comes to mind is how realistic it is. I already suspect that, if my vapid and muddleheaded piers are any indication, our society is in bad shape. The most realistic course would be for art to become a sort of vacation. But then doesn't it become technologized? Just like the Rhine river only sits in its landscape for the tourist-visiting industry, won't art simply become a kind of medical pill: step on up lads and get your two doses of artistic imagination today before you all go off to your wage-slave jobs! Sorry, but I cant stop this cynicism. I don't know how. I mean, isn't that what museums today are, at least for the many? I know in my own life, for the longest time I just didn't get all the art at a museum. I had never bothered looking at an image for more than a minute, let alone a half-hour. The only alternative is a completely new kind of artistic society, but that just doesn't seem particularly feasible.

>>11719692
You can at least post a link to the damn essay so that AnPrims like myself can join in on the discussion, or hell, define poiesis and enframing.

>>11724058
>But then doesn't it become technologized?
I think you're viewing art as something that is to be consumed. The solution should be in my view that art is something that we participate in as much as consume. With luck, technology will make this possible and social media could redeem itself. Think of reddit's /r/place art experiment. Real time collaborative pixel art over a massive canvas. Things like this, installed as extensions of democracy. Personal expression as outlet and shared vision. Insta and snap and facebook and them are only the absolute worst of humanity, the selfish, childish desire for approval regardless of whether the presented cause has merit. The other contemporary movement, the woke phenomenon, is a completely mercenary free-for-all grab for social status and dollars.

Incidentally you're terribly cynical. More than I ever was. I suppose this is a good thing, but not a healthy one, and hopefully temporary.

Can you imagine refitting the situational comedy ("sitcom") for the networked, interactive fiction age? What does this sort of mass-created, mass-consumed art say about the people who made/observed it? In a way, 4chan and meme culture are a beautiful prototype. Are you listening I'm givin' you pearls son.

>>11723612
>Where does the art come from if society is based on art?
As far as I understand, Heidegger is a sort of traditionalist revolutionary in this regard. He believes that Art has the capability of bringing forth something completely new into the world (remember, poetry and poiesis share the same root) but at the same time, the poet always works from within the tradition. At least in his early thought he seems to think that this tradition already contains the historical destiny of a people, but they need a prophet (a great artist) to bring it about. For him, fascism is the aesthetization of politics. The ultimate goal of fascism should be to turn the world into a work of art. And of course the only way to try this was to rip the world apart.

So the poet (Hölderlin) hears the voice of the gods and transcribes it into the tradition. The philosopher (Heidegger) hears his words and interprets it so the leader/duce/führer (Hitler) can lead the people to their historical destiny. That is, like others have pointed out, before Heidegger had his falling out with nazism.

>>11719756
Enframing is more a going through the motions practice mistake type thing.
If you see a murder in the information age, you first instinct is probably something to do with a phone. That's not the human instinct but the result of communication systems humans invented. It's like a state of mind like doublethink or Scientology and their dictionaries of made up words. It stops you seeing what you might do about the murder without a phone.

Hell, I'm sure plenty of young adults have already had the pleasure of a formative experience using DeviantArt and the like that previous generations did not have. For myself, I've shared stories with people all over the planet for years, more than half my life, thanks to bulletin board technology and this crazy internet. I can say from personal experience it has been a net benefit. The next generation of kids, being wal-marted in front of netflix and ipods so their parents can have their own time, I'm not sure how this technology will affect their development. Everything is changing so rapidly. The eldest living humans lived totally different lives, limited to the people and places they were raised. If they were lucky, they had an encyclopedia and money for movie tickets.

Everything is moving so fast, it's hard to say anything for sure except that artists will be psychopomps, midwives to generations in coming decades. If they fail, the leash on humanity could get even tighter.

>>11724090
I think what I was trying to say is that, if my experience is any indicator, most people will view art as something to consume. It'll be what the good folks at NPR recommend you do on the weekends etc. But anyways,
> hopefully temporary
Me too buddy, me too

>>11724110
>that pic
Cringed and based

>>11724173
How can a person live with technology, be surrounded by technology, and exist in a techno-industrial society, and not succumb to enframing? Are doses of artistic creation the answer? (they would be, after all, mere dosages)

>>11724208
And I'm suggesting capitalism can be harnessed, and people's desires can be properly directed towards collaboration being inevitable. If one isn't participating, one isn't 'cool'. This is already the case among kids and dota or minecraft or whatever. Like how previous generations had the shared experience of watching Porky's on VHS, or whatever, except networked. Art as real force, political in the most neutral [natural] sense. I can't help thinking of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Truly horrible work, but its concept of Whuffie as credit rating reflecting online influence was alarmingly prescient.

Can you fucking imagine, can you even imagine?

A society of artists.

>>11724281
Sounds terrible.

>>11722745

Yea so take the god thing seriously. Not big designer bearded man in sky who narration and ethical system and dogma. But rather an organization. The pattern of it.

Not a joke. Look inside. God is a thing. Judgment isn’t a thing. But all those things they said were sins will actually make you, and lead your life, miserable. Most religious texts are guidebooks for living packaged in metaphysics because existential fear and toxic individualism can both be solved by giving people a creation story.

The only subscription you need for god is order. Not even orderly order. Just some kind of organization. A pattern throughout. A binding thread running through it all.

I like one of pascals arguments. You’re surrounded on all sides by infinite nothingness. Infinity before you were alive, and infinity after you die. You’re here for an Infinitismal blip of time, almost nothing, really. And you think it’s random, pure coincidence, that you find yourself where you are, surrounded by who you are, doing what you do. There’s less of a chance of it being random than it being purposeful. Life is that insane. It shouldn’t be here but here we are.

Just keep an open mind. Eventually you’ll be convinced something is going on. It’s really fucking weird.

>>11724307
>implying something isn't going on

John 14:30-31
>I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. "Come now; let us leave."

>>11724307

I do try to keep an open mind, and I must say that you make a persuasive case. Look at
>>11722834

>>11722745

Even scientists will say they’ve had mystical experiences. What they do say is that mystical experiences are insufficient evidence for empirically proving the existence of something mystical. Because of the inaccuracy of human experience.

Hallucinations are not necessary. Your last sentence unfortunately belies a traumatic past. You’ll be working on that for a while. Look up cptsd books.

Every question, every critique against, ideas presented in religious texts, or by the ostensibly religious communities you have been exposed to, I can handily dismiss. You’re young, clearly confused, and you have some unresolved abandonment issues. Mostly everyone in this site has this, and most Americans as well. Continue reading and you’ll figure it out eventually. We of course always recommend starting with the Greeks. Diving into Heidegger is a risky move.

>>11724346
Thanks anon. Check out
>>11722834
and
>>11722947

>>11724346
Also, do you have a favorite Platonic dialogue?

I've always been found of Phaedo.

>>11724260
Heidegger thought it was a problem with religion as a technology too. Rather than explain that, Nietzsche's listing of the new gods coming such as the ones created by the historian and scientist and so on, is very helpful in understanding enframing and what leads people to believe the answer must be what the priest or scientist or in a technology. It's a lazy way of thinking that stops you from seeing things as they are, and instead makes you think things must be as they are because of the unseen history or science or god behind it. Art can exist because no human sees the same thing the same way because of what they've seen before but despite this we attempt to see the same thing: that same idea is behind religious searching after truth as much as the enlightenment's scientific searching after truth which would always have human empirical error. The idea isn't to get rid of these things but to remember they are stories of gods you have heard, and that you heard stories is how you lived, not "the content of the story must be how I lived". You're surrounded by more people than ever. You're not Neo and you don't have to be.

>>11724374

off the top of my head, the ones that stuck with me: symposium, phaedrus, parmenides, first half of the republic, 7th letter. i like most of them desu. the form is more important than the content with the greeks i think. aristotle is important as well, check out

https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Categories-Concerning-Interpretation-Commentaries/dp/1883058821

his ideas on method i think will interest you if you enjoy the medievals. being acquainted with aristotilean logic is important for right ways of thinking. i might as well mention the fourth way here as well. while it is a little cultish, the vocabulary used there will give you tools to identify parts of yourself. but take it with a pinch of salt.

some of platos ethical ideas are a little dubious, dont contain yourself too much; nietzche was right about power, you just need to define power for yourself. plato's rejection of the sexual drive is something that can get you tangled today. i recommend "the elementary particles" by houllebecq for some good fiction on libido.

dont ignore the presocratics, at least read through heraclitus's fragments. plato and aristotle were born into a culture with a longstanding history of philosophical thought; they didnt come from nowhere. i see another anon recommended plotinus, and ill echo that.

as for sarte, and all of existential thought in the 20th century, like dodecaphonism, its a reaction to the world wars. you cant take it too close to heart, its very nihilistic and, id even say, life rejecting. but still interesting. we really fucked ourselves in the early 20th. check out nietzsche's meditation "on the uses and disadvantages of history for life".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFIGoB7rK70

youve mentioned inversion, so if you havent yet you should read hume's treatise, kant's CoPR and/or the prologomena, and hegels logic (either the enclycopedia or science), and phenomenology. Sadler is great for the latter. aristotle had an early idea of negation, but he didnt unify the positive and negative. nietzsche's primary method of analysis is hegelian negation. a little trite to put it like that, but the essential idea is there.

the god situation, i think youre tangled. you dont need to subscribe to a dogmatic system of ethics to have faith in a higher order. you simply need to believe there is something greater than yourself. personally i identify with an organizational principal. pic related + emergent properties of matter, is where i am with it. you have a lot of choice here, but the choices you make dictate the life you lead.

if there is emotion holding you back, its probably because you have some unresolved trauma around religion. thank your parents for this, resolving it is part of becoming an adult.

>>/lit/thread/S11703861

>>11724554
ayyy man. i highly recommend dr sugrue's mp3 course on the dialogues. from the teaching company or the great courses or whatever they're called now. very very insightful shit and good companions.

>>11722805

a psychoactive drug, either lsd or mushrooms (12 vs 6 hours) taken in the wild, near a river with jumping salmon, or in a forest, is a recommendation.

if youre seeing a psych, and on other drugs (obviously dont mix), my personal recommendation is to do whatever it takes to stop everything. diet and exercise are the keys to this kingdom. healthy habits, a reason to live. "a man cant be of use to himself until he is of use to others"

swimming is the chillest, gets u fit, feels great, meditative, etc. i like rock climbing as well, the community determines if its worth it though, as it is a social sport.

there is a lot bullshit surrounding these drugs, and im not some trippy hippie, its been years and itll be a lot more before i go again. but the real deal is they change your perspective. the lens through which you perceive. it alters the kantian filter, so to say. the hallucinations are a meme, it changes how you look/think at/of things. its important i think to, at least once in life, have this shift. the environment in which you ingest will determine the experience.

something to think about if you havent. they will certainly induce a mystical experience, but its not for everyone, and theyre not necessary to acquire understanding. but i think this is an integral experience for consciousness to know itself. meditation can get you to the same place, so if youre against drugs, just do some breathing exercises (easier said than done, willpower must be cultivated). youll change your o2 levels, and it will induce a change in experience.

>>11724563
thanks ill check these out. i know allan bloom has a few lectures on socrates that i found insightful as well.

>>11724260

art is an answer to some of our modern problems, im a musician myself and i wouldnt know what life to live if i wasnt doing music. but its not the end; i dont agree with the isolated monk artist with a disinterested pursuit of beauty that nietzsche and schopenhauer speak of.

i will say that "creation" is a lie, we are makers. im a pythagorean when it comes to music and art by extension. its all latent potential, we just actualize it. i am a composer, and i can tell you first hand that this is the experience when composing. i am merely the messenger. art is a spiritual experience. the greeks speak of this "channels for the muses". "sing goddess, the anger of achillies". its not homer speaking, but a muse speaking through homer.

>>11724002
i don't really know what he means by this. but one of the attractions of zen is that does seem to be a kind of wisdom of contingency.

by ahistorical i mean a subject swept up, becoming seamlessly a part of the flow of things. the state of having nothing to reflect on or with. Things Happen and there you are. in terms of the enframing forced upon us by technology, i think of zen grasping the contingency of the acting subject in a way that neither removes the subject's power of act or promising them, perhaps, what they are looking for: the illusion of a higher frame. the goal is to take away *paralysis,* even if the non-paralyzed subject chooses to do nothing more with it than to remain still. you are framed and enframing.

heidegger's sense of dwelling recognizes this, of course: make your attitude to the world be one of releasement, of unconcealment. listening > speaking. and all this i love to death. but there's just no escaping of technology or decision-making.

the crisis, the emergency, the tragic and fateful hour of decision is stuff that western philosophy can sometimes founder on. we don't like being ripped apart by contradictory forces. but, what i'm wondering is if we just take force and contradiction to be, as it were, a priori conditions of our existence. we didn't ask for this life and we have variable amounts of control over it.

i will admit that i'm writing this because i had myself some rather disruptive stuff happen to me today that i won't get into. it interrupted my nice long cozy schizo-ramble about heidegger and technology, but i found myself kind of sliding into a zen attitude about what it was that was not only good for me but for the other people involved in this situation. kind of funny how life works like that.

i think that heidegger's interest in eastern philosophy and religion is interesting, and no accident. the zen monk, ideally, does not feel *angst,* i think, in the way a heideggerian might. this has positive and negative aspects. you trade Being for emptiness.

it's one way, albeit a kind of a crazy way, out of the perils of reflecting on history, contingency, language, your place in it...the places that, no doubt, you have gone in your mind, in your own ways. but i like the idea of harmonizing yourself with the way things are. sometimes it means taking the side of Nothingness against Being. maybe Being is fucking us up, the unbearable psychic debt to creation.

i just think, sometimes, that zen smiles at the idea of poverty. you can be an uprooted, stateless, faceless, homeless wanderer, all the conditions of impoverishment heidegger will lament. and then? something always comes after. there is always a next thing, just as something always precedes ontology as well.

i'll share with you also one of the best lines ever, that has haunted me ever since i heard it:

>the final end and ultimate return of the gnostics… is that the Real is identical with them, while they do not exist.

>>11724281
https://youtu.be/thbMaR6nyxY

>>11724155
My question was a naive one, but I think still applicable. To philosophize it a bit, if art is the coming into the world of forms what happens when art prefigures that coming into the world?

>>11725567
Am at work right now so I can't give you a lengthy response but you should really read the Origin of the work of art if you are really interested in Heidegger's answer to that, specially the passages about Art and its relation with the Earth/World dichotomy. I think it's 50 pages or so but it's an amazing read and one of the most influential writings on aesthetics of the last century.

>>11723364
Are you the leftist anti-Heideggerian?
In any case, this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. None of this stuff is obvious, and what you're responding to is a simplified form for clarification purposes.
I don't entirely agree with Heidegger myself, but the question of technology is by no means simple. You'll have to forgive me if I use too much of my own thinking here, or that of other authors, because it has been some time since I have read Heidegger. But I would contrast this idea of enframing with that of Marx's revalorisation of labour through the machine (in which dead labour is returned to living labour through machinic self-production). It is at this point that technology itself becomes value-in-process and begins to create its own form of value.
Nonetheless, we have a problem in that humans remain a circuit in this chain of value process, whereby the autonomy of the machine and the surrogacy of the human is only dominant in short-sightedness. Technology is 'enframed' by the human character of its productive need, which is never merely economic - there remains a deep cultural reasoning for mechanised production. This is made clear by the opposing manner in which political ideologies attempted to relate to their technology, and this is necessary because we recognise, at some level, that even living technology can bring death to itself. At this point essentially becoming its own 'standing reserve' waiting for us to revivify it.

(My response turned out to be something else entirely, so rather than clogging up the thread I'll post the rest on my blog, anyone interested can read it all there.)
http://mandalietmandaliet.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-digitised-hologram-of-letter-intended.html
Recommended soundtrack:
https://youtu.be/CjauwKb42d4

>>11725988
I have it on my computer, but my reading list is too long so I haven't gotten to it yet.

bump

bump

b

>>11722577
"standing-reserve" is a useless category; the feeling you are describing is called alienation, and marx already explained literally all about it and predicted the views of the future heideggers (ie reactionaries) before they were even born

>>11728121
>alienation is a feeling
lol, stay embarrassing, marxcucks

Anyway I wasn't particularly impressed by this essay despite it's nice poetical qualities.
>Ctrl+F "Telic finality"
Nothing. Really?

>>11728211
>Telic finality
I'm not an Aristotelian, and 'final cause' is a plebeian reading. So why would I bother with it?
And, in reality, I discussed a 'final cause' at a deeper level than mere materialism. So I don't see what you're getting at. Did you actually read it or just ctrlf looking for what you wanted?

>>11719692
jesus christ, what miserable dogshit.
continental philosophy is useless crap.
worse, it is actively harmful.
stupid fucking nazis and communists trying to justify their failure.

>>11728211
I mean, I was critical of the person's unsympathetic reading, but some of this is just extreme bloat and reads like a bad dictionary
>But how does bringing-forth happen, be it in nature or in handwork and art? What is the bringing-forth in which the fourfold way of occasioning plays? Occasioning has to do with the presencing [Anwesen] of that which at any given time comes to appearance in bringing-forth. Bringing-forth brings hither out of
concealment forth into unconcealment. Bringing-forth comes to pass only insofar as something concealed comes into unconcealment. This coming rests and moves freely within what we call revealing [das Entbergen].10 The Greeks have
the word ale¯theia for revealing. The Romans translate this with veritas. We say “truth” and usually understand it as the correctness of an idea.
>silverish is its quality of being silver
>chaliceness is its chalice-like being
>bringing-forth is its presencing
>bringing-forth is the concealment which is not a concealment
Woah, powerful. Synonymbot9000 BTFOs technology.
You do not overcome technology by enframing yourself within its technicalism. And that is precisely what Heidegger has done. Who would ever read this besides other fetishists of technicalism? It reads like a manual for a water integrator.
That is part of what I was critiquing, the question of technology which only deepens the enframing.

>>11728389
>Artworks, Heidegger contends, are things, a definition that raises the question of the meaning of a "thing," such that works have a thingly character.

bump

>>11729058
Thanks, this thread is interesting.

>>11722947
read The Sickness Unto Death anon

Want to commit suicide but also live long enough to become a cyborg fuck.
How long till decent functioning bionic limbs do you reckon?

>>11730245
>>>/wsg/2343854/
soon.

>>11725567
>if art is the coming into the world of forms
No, it is the opening of worlds.

>>11730283
Humans don't have that power, sorry.

>>11730169
i thought so too. kind of hoping OP returns with more thoughts on heidegger &c.

technology is a mother.

I love Barfield's perspective in Saving the Appearances. The alienation that resulted from technological advancement is a central theme in this book. IMO it's a severely underrated book—perhaps because of its interdisciplinary and somewhat spiritual approach—but his take on how human consciousness evolved over time and how we gradually got detached from the outer world is IMO fucking brilliant.

>>11719692
>Synopsis of Heidegger's essay: the essence of technology is revealing. The older, more traditional, handicraft technology is a bringing-forth (poiēsis). Modern technology is an enframing: it reveals the actual as standing-reserve.
so what does this nazi durkadurka talk actually mean when it is converted into a normal, non retarded sentence structure.

Bump

>>11731956
Modern technology changes the way we look at the world (in a negative way). The (apparently) only way out of the technological mindset is through art.

>>11730169
Thanks anon

>>11730847
This week I'm going to find out Heidegger's thoughts on art. He wrote an essay called The Origin of the Work of Art which I'm going through. Next weekend (or whenever I finish that) there'll be a new thread on art and whether it is a proper antidote to technology.

For people just coming into the thread (I recommend going through the whole thread), I think mine and another anon's consensus was that, though people have always looked at each other and nature in part as "standing-reserve" (as ready to be used), modern technology has greatly exasperated the whole situation. The connections between this mindset and the nihilistic culture remain to be thought out.

My head fucking hurts after reading this thread >>11731566 and most of this one

>>11734452
There was certainly a lot of passion in that other thread. How could this thread have been better? I'm gonna have one about art next weekend and would like to know? Do I just sound too stupid? Be honest

>>11723902
Therapy doesn't work. Try convincing a delusional he's delusional.

Two things must be overcome:

The primacy of being over becoming (phallogocentrism/ontotheology) [still present in Heidegger to some degree], {nicely dealt with by pic related, Whiteheadian process, Deleuzean difference, Daoist non-dualism).

And dis-enchantment. To combat disenchantment we must re-enchant science. Ontological polytheism and plurality. Aminism and immanence. Magic. Not as realer than reality or less real but as equally real. Self-emptying love as taught by Christ. Courage, empathy, honesty, self-sacrifice. Not to the point of becoming standing reserve but give us the monolithic kick in the ass for timewave zero in 2001-err 2012... Re-enchanct ourselves. We need process but we need to also participate in that process. Participatory process metaphysics of dialectical monism of the tertium quid. Monks are a primitive form of traditional academic theologians. Every college is a guild of mystery cultism. Embrace the mysteries. Open the doors of perception. Become not worried about enframing, cybernetics, control, biopolitics, that is all outside you. Your body of desire is holographic astral and made of light. To manifest the light body in this physical manifestation is to become an avatar body. The perfected and resurrected body of Chrst. That which makes miracles possible. The shekinah. The pneuma. The philosopher's stone. The cross is a mushroom.

>>11733164
looking forward to it anon. i've read that essay and it's an amazing one. time spent with heidegger is not time wasted.

as for how to improve threads, honestly, i thought this one was great. i thought you were engaging with heidegger sincerely and it made me want to go back and check out pic rel again. looking forward to your thread.

>>11734579
frankly, threads that just focused on key essays in the history of philosophy would be a good idea. you've already raised one: the question concerning technology. if you're going to return and do the origins of the work of art, maybe that's the second part. i could actually see /lit/ coming up with a long list of seminal articles and texts to talk about for discussions. if they were short enough - less than book-length - they might get people interested in the various thinkers, and things might not so quickly go off the rails into demented shitposting.
>things will go off the rails into demented shitposting
>t. guy who takes his own threads off the rails into demented shitposting

well. anyways. thanks for the heidegger-ing.

>>11730588
yeah that’s why art does it dumbass

>>11734607
Next we should do Walter Benjamin. Theses on the Philosophy of History and Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and The Task of the Translator are all fantastic.

>>11734646
Sounds interesting, anon. I'll check out the Theses of the Philosophy of History and the others. Thanks for the recommendation. Also, I just bought a collection of Emerson essays. Is there any interest in Emerson?

>>11734697
Reflections and Illuminations has most of his major work. He also wrote a dense unfinished tome called the arcades project but I have not delved in yet.

I like what I've read of Emerson but it was long ago.

>>11734488
What was the other thread?

>>11734938
The thread the other anon had mentioned. Its gone now, I believe. It was about the mind body problem (at least that is what it turned into).

Bump

>>11733164
>Modern technology changes the way we look at the world (in a negative way). The (apparently) only way out of the technological mindset is through art.
no it doesnt.
i really lilke having teeth that arent rotten cuz i have toothpaste and a dentist.
i really like reading and experiencing about newest cool stuff that is being invented and discovered.
i like talking to all the different people in the world.
i like the giant repository of knoweldge at my finger tips.
i like not working on a plantation.
i like plumbing.
i like electricity.

prove that im wrong.

>>11736452
also i like not starving

>>11734646
>Next we should do Walter Benjamin. Theses on the Philosophy of History and Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction and The Task of the Translator are all fantastic.

that's a really good suggestion, exactly the kind of essay i was thinking of.

>>11736452

>>11736452

I never understand this shit that much. The only time I could understand it more was when I was feeling extremely alone and anxious. These days more of my problems revolve around anxieties regarding a range of mundane to relatively concerning life shit. Health, finances, etc. When I see threads with posters quickly talking about how we need some upheaval like fascism to reinvigorate spirit or something I'm either bored or a little unnerved. That whole saga was a horror show, and its standard bearers all huddle around memes fantasizing the annihilation and subjugation of tens of millions of people. I'm not sure if it is an intense ennui, or what. I just want a more secure life and more free time to pursue my interests. I think I empathize with that clip from pic related where he says he doesn't want to take any part in some intense council communism. He just wants to read his books, watch his movies and be left alone. I know that kind of freedom probably won't ever be possible in my lifetime, but I'd want to get as close to it as possible rather than be thrust into the uncertainty and mayhem of a fucking race war or some shit.

>>11736529
im pretty sure that you are one of the billions of people whos lives have been made objectively better by technology. but for fag fucks like heideggar, who lived their entire fucking lives in an ivory tower, they see us common people producing astounding achievement and they cannot help but hate it. It takes away from their own false prestige.

like, look at this red neck farmer in florida who invented a new water conservation device. He is a redneck uneducated fuck, yet he has created a thing that will better the lives of literally 10s of millions of people. And he is now rich because of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTdDcj5UdLI

now Imagine being a continental philosopher, spending 8-10 years on your education and being incapable of improving the life of anyone. Of having zero marketable skills. imagine spending all that time learning about how all the amazing things happening in reality dont matter, or isnt real, or is subjective, or whatever. You KNOW that all this technology is just bullshit. you KNOW that the redneck is too dumb to understand it. How DARE that redneck make more money than you. How DARE society reward him more than you. how DARE they. You KNOW that you DESERVE more prestige than him.

i guarantee tho, if you offer the continentals in this thread a one way plane ticket to new guinea, zero of them will take it. they dont actually believe that shit they say. i think a large part of it is resentment. Imagine seeing your entire 250 year intellectual tradition produce failure after failure after failure. but this farmer can succeed.

>>11736637
>false-flag
>moving goalposts
>>11736529
No one is saying living a peaceful life is not good. But in many ways the government and capitalism make it difficult to live a peaceful life and read books. When does capitalism consume itself? When can we all reap benefits instead of the privileged few?

>>11736637

>>11736637

>>11722567
damn I should get a Matisse book or something

Bump

>>11736637
>farmers
>universally poor
>highest suicide rate by profession
>hurrdurr this one farmer got rich so now every philosopher is jealous of every farmer
Non sequitur

>>11722813
cool article. reminds me of that cao fei installation in the guggenheim

>>11739661
got a whole thread going on about him over here.

>>11733072

>>11736756
>No one is saying living a peaceful life is not good. But in many ways the government and capitalism make it difficult to live a peaceful life and read books. When does capitalism consume itself? When can we all reap benefits instead of the privileged few?

I don't see the leap to fascism though. That is why I brought up Zizek, at least. To sort of gesture at that I have more sympathies with the move towards socialism, even though I agree with Zizek that I don't actually want to be at the Soviet every other day voting on tedious issues of production or working conditions. Admittedly some people are in business meetings every other day, which is only a difference in scale or participants maybe, but I'd think Zizek doesn't like those either, and neither do I. Ideally I'd like to be left alone to learn about things, do hobbies, maybe undertake projects that are enjoyable to me with like-minded people, but that is all a level of control over my life I acknowledge probably wouldn't be possible unless I lived in that Asimov novel with the detective or whatever that went to colonized planets where humans owned solitary plantations with tens of thousands of robot slaves.

But I'm rambling. I just don't see how fascism is appealing. I mean I get it in a way. It seems like it's the drama of fighting Mordor/The Empire from Star Wars like all the animes and video games every 20 something guy on the internet too much has consumed their whole lives, but at the end of it you also get to make the rules and say "this time, my waifu has to love me forever, make me dinner, raise my kids and if she doesn't WE ALL acknowledge she is a FILTHY whore, and maybe there is a law that says I'm allowed to spit on brown people when I want to". I just don't find the end game of a traditional fashy society that appealing. It sounds like it would just lead to a different kind of society filled with dissonance and fakery that is hypernormalised, and at the expense of a ton of discomfort. I think the reason not much changes is because everybody already recognizes this intuitively, and would rather endure the discomforts we know right now while trying to adjust them in the least painful way possible.

>>11719692
That photo reminds me of the film Still Life (2006) directed by Jia Zhangke. Has anyone else here seen it?

>>11739732
You must have me confused. I want change. Just not fascist change. I wouldn't mind that change being achieved democratically either. Tho I have lost some faith in democracy, I still hope that society can progress socially to catch up with our technological progress.

>>11739768
No, why should I?

>>11740974
It's good.

Against the diffused landscapes of Fengjie, the dust of a sinking city cakes the air as two individuals comb the outskirts for their estranged kin. Their seemingly aimless quest casually reveals, through wandering observational methods, a turmoil in the government sanctioned emigration, due to rising waters caused by the Three Gorges Dam.

Jia's digital aesthetics enable not only a murky worldview, details losing themselves in the poor dynamic range, but the interlacing also provides a very Antonioni-esque relationship between man and environment, any movement coalescing the subjects, humans converging with the very world they are composed to be engulfed in.

>>11741004
Thanks. Any other recommendations?

bump

Bump

>>11736452
The teeth, plumbing, plantation and (arguably) electricity aren't really problems if you go back a couple thousand years. Ancient humans did shit like root canals, massive irrigation projects, class systems and lighting long before we got around to writing plays.

>>11722374
The cultivation of virtue is the measure of a good life, not the cultivation of happiness.

bump

Bump

>>11722985
i browse these threads all the time but this post truly scared the shit out of me. may we spend our time in eternity together, brother

The internet is the wiring for the brain of culture, the web its mind. Culture is the moon-baby/antichrist. We its neurons.

just posting to say i appreciate that this thread is still up

Fucking retarded reddit thread. Stop larping you idiots.

>>11745665
Wow great post! Here have an upvote!

Has anyone worked on an AI reading list/chart/some sort of organised list.

Bump

>>11747247
There’s not much too it. For an overall introduction get Stuart & Russell. For machine learning, I recommend “learning from data”