Over millions of years the nervous system transitions from a simple switchboard to a conscious bureaucracy, becoming a manager of reflexes, energy allocation, and broad survival strategies. Organizational hierarchy accretes. The sensory brain processes so much information that interpretive nodes are needed to sort, preserve, and discard it. Complicated olfactory pathways grown in nocturnal mammals coordinate with arousal patterns and invent emotions, a check on reflex's dependency to visual stimulus. (One doesn't gain a snake's trust - a snake is placated by food and nonthreatening approach.)
Mammalian hardware provides for emotional memory and risk assessment. It begins to understand collective action, reiterating the shift to multicellularity a couple billion years back. The good escapes the confines of the self. Increased social complexity demands role specialization, and no individual can perceive the total of the social order.
Now, with most of its old executive power surrendered to social precedent (these ancient shared abstractions, body/State and cell/Subject, are themselves a cultural ritual for examining political organization), the conscious mind takes on the perpetual busywork of any middleman: justifying its position. The governing body can get results - and we feel fulfillment. It can pander to the palate or the flesh, often at a cost. Depression can become a referendum on impeaching conscious thought.
The mind approaches its own death. It is becoming a redundancy in the organization, and confronting termination is increasingly its sole purpose. We undergo a tapered withdrawal from control to ease the transition back to cellularity. To diminish in luxury, loved by the body, strung out on purpose, one admits and celebrates the emblematic nature of consciousness. The mind is the joint achievement of body and culture. (If you want, shift the whole story over a place: the body a joint achievement of mind and physicality.)
It's tough to decide at what point consciousness becomes irrelevant to human trajectory within a larger cultural framework, but if you believe, as I do, in the willful abdication of cultural obligation when that culture becomes damaging to its constituency, you must also understand the purpose of the abdication of consciousness, not to destroy it, but to remake it. The mind steps down for elections and is reaffirmed as figurehead - self-doubt and its resolution. The mind takes a holiday and restores order when it returns - unconsciousness. In this way intoxication is an attempt to prepare consciousness for death, not of the individual, but of consciousness on the individual level. The interpersonal ethical dispute for or against individual consciousness is necessarily moot, but whether one is a mental self-preservationist or not, a radical approach to reorganizing consciousness and comprehending its own absurdity is recommended. i dont really know what else to say. thank you for reading and responding with constrictive criticisms sincerely swampman. This post excerpted with permission from "Swampmans Big List of Self Evident Shit" of copyright 2011 2009 2008 2005 2004 2003 All rights reserve
Edited by swampman ()
Who had no traits of any value but his smile
I met a man who had no yearn or claim to fame
Who was content to let life pass him for a while
And I was sure that all I ever wanted
Was a life like the movie stars led
And he kissed me right here, and he said,
"I'll give you stars and the moon and a soul to guide you
And a promise I'll never go
I'll give you hope to bring out all the life inside you
And the strength that will help you grow.
I'll give you truth and a future that's twenty times better
Than any Hollywood plot."
And I thought, "You know, I'd rather have a yacht."
I met a man who lived his life out on the road
Who left a wife and kids in Portland on a whim
I met a man whose fire and passion always showed
Who asked if I could spare a week to ride with him
But I was sure that all I ever wanted
Was a life that was scripted and planned
And he said, "But you don't understand —
"I'll give you stars and the moon and the open highway
And a river beneath your feet
I'll give you day full of dreams if you travel my way
And a summer you can't repeat.
I'll give you nights full of passion and days of adventure,
No strings, just warm summer rain."
And I thought, "You know, I'd rather have champagne."
I met a man who had a fortune in the bank
Who had retired at age thirty, set for life.
I met a man and didn't know which stars to thank,
And then he asked one day if I would be his wife.
And I looked up, and all I could think of
Was the life I had dreamt I would live
And I said to him, "What will you give?"
"I'll give you cars and a townhouse in Turtle Bay
And a fur and a diamond ring
And we'll be married in Spain on my yacht today
And we'll honeymoon in Beijing.
And you'll meet stars at the parties I throw at my villas
In Nice and Paris in June."
And I thought, "Okay."
And I took a breath
And I got my yacht
And the years went by
And it never changed
And it never grew
And I never dreamed
And I woke one day
And I looked around
And I thought, "My God...
I'll never have the moon."
STOCKHOLM (AP) — A seemingly intoxicated moose has been discovered entangled in an apple tree by a stunned Swede.
Per Johansson says he heard a roar from his vacationing neighbor's garden in southwestern Sweden late Tuesday and went to have a look. There, he found a female moose kicking about in the tree. The animal was likely drunk from eating fermented apples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden woman's 'murder' committed by elk not husband
A Swedish man who was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife has been cleared, after police decided she was probably killed by an elk.
...The European elk, or moose, is usually considered to be shy and will normally run away from humans. But Swedish Radio International says the animals can become aggressive after eating fermented fallen apples in gardens.
ilmdge posted:
im not sure i understand the OP but heres some ~funny news articles~
what dont you understand? im here, ask questions, tell me what im doing that fucks up my ability to communicate w/ppl, i didnt post it just to prove i can write more than 2 dumb ass punchlines in a row
On a 2001 trip to the cathedrals of Europe, anthropologist John Rush and his wife entered St. Marks Basilica in Venice and encountered a mosaic depicting Jesus surrounded by mushrooms with an Amanita muscaria cap in his hand. Examining the space with new eyes, they discovered images of mushrooms and mind-altering plants all over the Basilica. Intrigued, Dr. Rush spent seven years researching and reflecting on the profound effects hallucinogens had on the founding of all three major Western religions. He concluded that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are political constructions evolving out of the use of not only Amanita muscaria, but a plethora of mind-altering substances.
Failed God: Fractured Myth in a Fragile World re-examines the scriptural stories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as told in the Bible and Quran and reveals them as concocted mythical charters stemming from drug-induced romps with the super-natural. Rush shows how mind-altering substances played an instrumental role in the birth and development of Western religions and explains how they contributed to reports of prophetic experiences, including angry and disturbing messages from the divine. With chapters on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Rush fully addresses the effects of mind-altering substances on each tradition, convincingly discrediting the idea that they stem from actual human interaction with the divine. He also shows how an intoxicated and over-zealous Apostle Paul corrupted Jesuss simple message of human decency, forming an oppressive religious system based on fear. In a thought-provoking conclusion, Rush asks how we can continue to attribute authority to traditions that were so clearly irrationally founded and incompatible with todays world.
dont even get me started on religions and the mushroom cult
babyfinland posted:
i'm wondering, since you establish your "right to rebel" on the basis of terminating a self-destructive culture, are there are bounds to the extent you might go towards that end?
Well, when I wrote this, I was thinking about the function of individuality within the organism of the State, similar to the individuality of a cancer within the organized body. I guess in reflection, and I probably wouldn't have said this when I was writing the OP, I think the rebellion isn't so much a right as a logical, unavoidable response for a biological redundancy.
I think rights-based thought becomes practical when we're seeing mental rebellion as an alternative to other (shoddy) political analogies. the State seeks to replace the individual in controlling the body - and I mean this happens in very concrete ways, because the State really does seek to predict, simplify, collectivize, organize, and control our every biological process, from how our labor is applied to where we sleep to what we distract ourselves with. What I'm not sure about is if an "individual" by its very nature is going to reject becoming a sort of supernumerary governmental body, but that's the assumption I've been operating under - sort of a psychological version of material conditions.
The reordering of consciousness by any means is sort of an extension on the logic of the process that makes the mind supernumerary to the unity of body and state in the "body politick." The state-sanctioned response is disarmament and acceptance, like the fate of so much figurehead nobility in late-capitalist democracies. Have you seen the video where the English crown's existence is "justified" because the crown's wealth and holdings are on permanent loan to the state? The video doesn't mention that the state could appropriate any and all holdings deemed necessary to its own operation as it abolishes the crown. This would be analogous to the point at which the State seizes the physical property/properties of the individual. To the degree that we believe the appropriation of (these facets/features of) individuality is necessary to the right function of the State, we won't resist it.
But that is conditional on a moral order that the individual has a hand in creating. An organizing body (and I think for this to have practical suggestions beyond "do drugs and fuck shit up! bad religion!" we have to extend it to spheres beyond the monolithic State, so: a company, a neighborhood, a message board, a checkout queue(?)) that proceeds without regard for the individual, and I don't just mean against its interests but completely without its input or control or the sufficient illusion of input & control, has sacrificed that moral relationship.
An ancient tool whose functions we've superceded becomes something else. Even after we read the placard, its usefulness is of supreme unimportance to us. At the same time, there is an opening of meaning associated with the relic that is more difficult for us to achieve with objects that "are what they do" in a manner of speaking. The useless tool is, most importantly for this subject, capable of reassignment, reappropriation, fuckin whatever, into our mental schema and physical world. So to suddenly give an actual answer, I'd say we should see the repurposing of the mind as a natural response rather than a right to be exercised. It's a process necessarily without ethical or rational bounds, since we are dealing with the irrelevancy of mental order at the individual level. The practical bounds are a matter of the aims of the individual, and the progression of community control.
There's more to be said here about capital turning the entire logic of the nation-state, as an organized body that proceeds logically from the organized unity of rational thought in the individual, upside-down, to cause this kind of alienation. I also believe that the plague of "mental illness" is an undisciplined (I don't mean that as a perjorative) mass response to supernumerary individuality. This is also tied to the concept of the "superfluous man," but mostly, I just think we need to start undermining faith in rational action as a response to state control.
gyrofry posted:
i can't read cyan on red
forum posting should be a painful and alienating experience to better aesthetically represent lacanian anti-humanism
aerdil posted:gyrofry posted:
i can't read cyan on redforum posting should be a painful and alienating experience to better aesthetically represent lacanian anti-humanism
much like your...uh...
gyrofry posted:aerdil posted:gyrofry posted:
i can't read cyan on redforum posting should be a painful and alienating experience to better aesthetically represent lacanian anti-humanism
much like your...uh...
mom
swampman posted:babyfinland posted:
i'm wondering, since you establish your "right to rebel" on the basis of terminating a self-destructive culture, are there are bounds to the extent you might go towards that end?Well, when I wrote this, I was thinking about the function of individuality within the organism of the State, similar to the individuality of a cancer within the organized body. I guess in reflection, and I probably wouldn't have said this when I was writing the OP, I think the rebellion isn't so much a right as a logical, unavoidable response for a biological redundancy.
I think rights-based thought becomes practical when we're seeing mental rebellion as an alternative to other (shoddy) political analogies. the State seeks to replace the individual in controlling the body - and I mean this happens in very concrete ways, because the State really does seek to predict, simplify, collectivize, organize, and control our every biological process, from how our labor is applied to where we sleep to what we distract ourselves with. What I'm not sure about is if an "individual" by its very nature is going to reject becoming a sort of supernumerary governmental body, but that's the assumption I've been operating under - sort of a psychological version of material conditions.
The reordering of consciousness by any means is sort of an extension on the logic of the process that makes the mind supernumerary to the unity of body and state in the "body politick." The state-sanctioned response is disarmament and acceptance, like the fate of so much figurehead nobility in late-capitalist democracies. Have you seen the video where the English crown's existence is "justified" because the crown's wealth and holdings are on permanent loan to the state? The video doesn't mention that the state could appropriate any and all holdings deemed necessary to its own operation as it abolishes the crown. This would be analogous to the point at which the State seizes the physical property/properties of the individual. To the degree that we believe the appropriation of (these facets/features of) individuality is necessary to the right function of the State, we won't resist it.
But that is conditional on a moral order that the individual has a hand in creating. An organizing body (and I think for this to have practical suggestions beyond "do drugs and fuck shit up! bad religion!" we have to extend it to spheres beyond the monolithic State, so: a company, a neighborhood, a message board, a checkout queue(?)) that proceeds without regard for the individual, and I don't just mean against its interests but completely without its input or control or the sufficient illusion of input & control, has sacrificed that moral relationship.
An ancient tool whose functions we've superceded becomes something else. Even after we read the placard, its usefulness is of supreme unimportance to us. At the same time, there is an opening of meaning associated with the relic that is more difficult for us to achieve with objects that "are what they do" in a manner of speaking. The useless tool is, most importantly for this subject, capable of reassignment, reappropriation, fuckin whatever, into our mental schema and physical world. So to suddenly give an actual answer, I'd say we should see the repurposing of the mind as a natural response rather than a right to be exercised. It's a process necessarily without ethical or rational bounds, since we are dealing with the irrelevancy of mental order at the individual level. The practical bounds are a matter of the aims of the individual, and the progression of community control.
There's more to be said here about capital turning the entire logic of the nation-state, as an organized body that proceeds logically from the organized unity of rational thought in the individual, upside-down, to cause this kind of alienation. I also believe that the plague of "mental illness" is an undisciplined (I don't mean that as a perjorative) mass response to supernumerary individuality. This is also tied to the concept of the "superfluous man," but mostly, I just think we need to start undermining faith in rational action as a response to state control.
you speak about an individual a lot here without addressing that its produced by the capitalist state itself. individuals constituted as such are produced by the state and while everything youre saying may well be true i think this probably has some relevance to your analysis. i donno just something that came to mind, havent really formed a proper response yet
babyfinland posted:
i think youre right about that
then smoke this fuckin blunt! power to the people!
