#1
Trying to make a thread that will "liberate the atomic energies of desire" (like, in a chill way) and crystallize it's scattered elements into conceptual framework that has the life of a tiger in the mind.

But, what kind of thread is even missing? What would an ultrathread even look like? Would there be a difference with the thread regarding formalities; would it be fractal? What initial attributes could be in place to promote complexity and nuance? What is there to talk about?

#2
I'm starting a hyperthread
#3
you will, of course, need to address the issue of the first post just being goatsecx or not, fortunately,
#4
it would be rhizomatic close thread
#5
It is weird this place is called the "rhizzone" because desire as an ontological force is fundamentally anti-Marxist and we are still suffering the damage Deleuze and co. wrought on science. Weirdly there are Marxist economists who have coalesced in the last decade because there are no more Marxist philosophers or historians anymore, how sad that I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism. I guess it took years for this place to become Marxist, mostly because twitter had to exist to allow rhizomic expression to flourish as something commodifiable and those individuals like Dead Ken and Discipline to valorize their intellectual labor.
#6
BHPN contemplates a baby with his enormous fireworks exploding glow brain: Through the immortal science of marxist-leninism, I infer that some day this baby must be bathed, and will leave behind dirty bathwater. To protect these ignorant parents from needing to throw out bathwater, I will ceremoniously slam dunk this gurgling infant into the nearest trash can.

*sounds of a scuffle, screams, THUNK*

You're Welcome, proletariat.
#7

babyhueypnewton posted:

It is weird this place is called the "rhizzone" because desire as an ontological force is fundamentally anti-Marxist and we are still suffering the damage Deleuze and co. wrought on science. Weirdly there are Marxist economists who have coalesced in the last decade because there are no more Marxist philosophers or historians anymore, how sad that I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism. I guess it took years for this place to become Marxist, mostly because twitter had to exist to allow rhizomic expression to flourish as something commodifiable and those individuals like Dead Ken and Discipline to valorize their intellectual labor.



Apologies in advance for my ignorance,

It would be perfectly Deleuzian to say that any 'damage' as you mean it here, in regards to the unfolding of Marxism, was perhaps already inside of it fundamentally, that damage may just be where ideas need to extend and merely allows for an opportunity to develop further... But, I don't know, he is rather optimistic...

I'm quite curious as to how desire, as a phenomena, is anti-anything. Is the wind anti-dust? Do you mean that while at the whim of desire one makes themselves opposed to marxism?

Myself, I'm mainly into Deleuze's work on Spinoza and where that sits with Marxism is of great interest.

#8

babyhueypnewton posted:

I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism


lol

#9

babyhueypnewton posted:

how sad that I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism.


do you though? because his criticisms are distinctly racist

#10

Petrol posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

how sad that I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism.

do you though? because his criticisms are distinctly racist



Unfortunately academia is a closed circle so if someone isn't "cited" as respectable they might as well be David Icke. I wish I could tell people to readsettlers.org but they wouldn't

#11
readsettlers.org is now full of citations so you can do the standard academic thing of citing the citations and pretending you've actually done some work, instead of regurgitating racist demagoguery
#12
grandpa thinks about cannabis

Edited by swampman ()

#13

c_man posted:

readsettlers.org is now full of citations so you can do the standard academic thing of citing the citations and pretending you've actually done some work, instead of regurgitating racist demagoguery



hey man I gotta get a job like anyone else. I plan to use settlers in my diss anyway and will try to avoid Zizek as much as possible, best I can do.

#14

levoydpage posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

It is weird this place is called the "rhizzone" because desire as an ontological force is fundamentally anti-Marxist and we are still suffering the damage Deleuze and co. wrought on science. Weirdly there are Marxist economists who have coalesced in the last decade because there are no more Marxist philosophers or historians anymore, how sad that I have to cite Zizek to attack postmodern multiculturalism. I guess it took years for this place to become Marxist, mostly because twitter had to exist to allow rhizomic expression to flourish as something commodifiable and those individuals like Dead Ken and Discipline to valorize their intellectual labor.

Apologies in advance for my ignorance,

It would be perfectly Deleuzian to say that any 'damage' as you mean it here, in regards to the unfolding of Marxism, was perhaps already inside of it fundamentally, that damage may just be where ideas need to extend and merely allows for an opportunity to develop further... But, I don't know, he is rather optimistic...

I'm quite curious as to how desire, as a phenomena, is anti-anything. Is the wind anti-dust? Do you mean that while at the whim of desire one makes themselves opposed to marxism?

Myself, I'm mainly into Deleuze's work on Spinoza and where that sits with Marxism is of great interest.



Deleuze is just dialectical-materialism without contradiction. imo. so yes, while desire can be a substitute for sublation, it removes the causality that comes from primary and secondary contradiction and instead posits "desire" as immanent and flat. I don't think it's wrong, just an impartial version of dialectics which describes an age without history and class struggle and is incapable of transcending it.

#15

babyhueypnewton posted:

c_man posted:

readsettlers.org is now full of citations so you can do the standard academic thing of citing the citations and pretending you've actually done some work, instead of regurgitating racist demagoguery

hey man I gotta get a job like anyone else. I plan to use settlers in my diss anyway and will try to avoid Zizek as much as possible, best I can do.


fair enough. im just curious how you twist zizek's racist nonsense into the service of non-racist points. i guess because it's nonsense you can make it sound like he supports pretty much anything with selective quotes, is that it? guess i answered my own question haha

#16

a posted:

grandpa thinks about cannabis



^ take it away, swampman

#17

Petrol posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

c_man posted:

readsettlers.org is now full of citations so you can do the standard academic thing of citing the citations and pretending you've actually done some work, instead of regurgitating racist demagoguery

hey man I gotta get a job like anyone else. I plan to use settlers in my diss anyway and will try to avoid Zizek as much as possible, best I can do.

fair enough. im just curious how you twist zizek's racist nonsense into the service of non-racist points. i guess because it's nonsense you can make it sound like he supports pretty much anything with selective quotes, is that it? guess i answered my own question haha



yeah Zizek just says common sense things like "new agey bullshit is well suited to neoliberalism" and then you get to cite that. though I have yet to meet any Zizekians (or Zizekbros) which might turn me off the whole enterprise. wish I could use this forum, the discussion people had about that the other day was way better than anything zizek has to say. also his usage of the term "liberal communists" to describe those people is vile. but we all know that already. still waiting for Aerdil's massive takedown of Zizek and the Mali thread.

#18

babyhueypnewton posted:

twitter had to exist to allow rhizomic expression to flourish as something commodifiable and those individuals like Dead Ken and Discipline to valorize their intellectual labor.



that is a really weird pair for you to cite in the same breath on that topic imo considering the differences.

#19

cars posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

twitter had to exist to allow rhizomic expression to flourish as something commodifiable and those individuals like Dead Ken and Discipline to valorize their intellectual labor.

that is a really weird pair for you to cite in the same breath on that topic imo considering the differences.



I did it purposefully because I can't understand why discipline spends her time on twitter where she is lost in the sea of noise and has an entire group of crazy people stalking her. My only conclusion is that the whole "first generation" of rhizzone posters suffered from the same desire to change the world through writing and were absorbed into the temptations of social media. There was too much somethingawful in them, they did not understand the danger that was the real face of twitter horizonal communication compared to the oppressive top down moderation of SA.

#20
she thinks it's less toxic than this forum iirc and she's probably right. in any case i think you know pretty well how drastically different the arcs of those two people's lives have been over the last few years e.g. that one of them is an organizer for a communist party and the other is a corbynite opinion columnist
#21
This forum is great though and Twitter sucks. But if she's bothered by it she can always come back home and dispute it. Come back to the zzone former posting pals...
#22

babyhueypnewton posted:

an impartial version of dialectics which describes an age without history and class struggle and is incapable of transcending it.



This is why I like Deleuze. It wasn't his way of thinking that ushered in the age without history and class struggle that's capitalism and it's vogue (myth) of post-modernism. His jump to metaphysics was an effort to transcend this very problem and elucidate how revolution fails, or perhaps even how does one fail the essence of revolution.

Does Marxism have an inherent spirituality (kingdom come) or is it more the pragmatic absence of spirituality all together?

#23

babyhueypnewton posted:

This forum is great though and Twitter sucks. But if she's bothered by it she can always come back home and dispute it. Come back to the zzone former posting pals...



i guess what i'd say is that both this forum and Twitter have proven in the past to be reliable avenues for lunatics to harass women who post on them and so if a woman feels compelled to post online i can't see much reason to choose here over there given the number of women currently on that site vs the number currently on this one, which isn't great for this site overall

#24

cars posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

This forum is great though and Twitter sucks. But if she's bothered by it she can always come back home and dispute it. Come back to the zzone former posting pals...

i guess what i'd say is that both this forum and Twitter have proven in the past to be reliable avenues for lunatics to harass women who post on them and so if a woman feels compelled to post online i can't see much reason to choose here over there given the number of women currently on that site vs the number currently on this one, which isn't great for this site overall


agreed. but twitter, and social media in general, is toxic for bigger reasons. i miss interacting with people like her the same as i miss some facebook comrades since i quit there but my god is it easier to maintain focus of matters of importance, politically, without the extreme white noise of social media, tainted as it is by powerful interests

#25
i don't spend a lot of time posting on Twitter but if i were a woman i doubt i'd feel very different about posting here either.
#26
yeah, it's a shame
#27

babyhueypnewton posted:

My only conclusion is that the whole "first generation" of rhizzone posters suffered from the same desire to change the world through writing and were absorbed into the temptations of social media.


If that is the only conclusion you could possibly reach then you are suffering from a pretty serious lack of imagination about certain things duder.

#28

levoydpage posted:

Does Marxism have an inherent spirituality (kingdom come) or is it more the pragmatic absence of spirituality all together?



imo neither. Marx intended his work to provide part of a project to change the material world based on continual observation and analysis of it. but i trust people who treat it as the second thing you said more than those who claim it's the first one because saying Christ was a socialist or whatever is anachronistic and shameful & it's just liberal-atheist propaganda to conflate class war with chilaism.

#29
i should add that I know and work with a group of leftist Christians and I don't think a single one of them sees Marxism as a spiritual project, at least not in a direct way. they're either syndicalists who aren't terribly interested in Marx or they see socialist politics as one means to practice their values in the current world, in large part because the apparatus under United States capitalists is the Devil's favorite worldwide murderer atm.
#30

Belphegor posted:

I'm starting a hyperthread



the hyperthread has gone supraliminal & we require a phased plasma rifle in the forty watt range

#31

levoydpage posted:

Does Marxism have an inherent spirituality (kingdom come) or is it more the pragmatic absence of spirituality all together?


Well, Marxism is a materialist philosophy interested in analyzing the present material conditions and exercising that analysis to liberate exploited and oppressed peoples. Or more generally an epistemic philosophy of scientific materialist analysis. Where spiritual matters intersect with that analysis and liberation (priests advocating quietism to suppress the contradictions afflicting working people, bourgeois transhuman techgnosticism, obviously heinous shit like manifest destiny,) Marxism has things to say: "Throw it in the trash."

Of course plenty of people contend that absolutely all religion and spirituality is a mistake that only enables oppression (incl myself on grumpier days,) but not necessarily every Marxist, and if any facets of spirituality do somehow turn out to stand outside the question of defeating capitalism then broadly speaking political Marxism doesn't really care anymore. All else being equal, it doesn't care one way or the other about pursuing enlightenment or spiritual redemption or if we are numinous beings or whatever, it's just not about that.

#32
i'd remind everyone per the usual that as Christians we mostly think it's fine if we help you do good things and then you shoot us and throw our bodies in the garbage, it's sort of our thing anyway and we feel we have the next step covered to our satisfaction
#33
I'd really rather not shoot my friend cars, or anyone helpful and nice for that matter, but I'm a tolerant kind of guy and if he keeps insisting on it like this I'm willing to keep an open mind.
#34
religious people arent real
#35

shriekingviolet posted:

I'd really rather not shoot my friend cars, or anyone helpful and nice for that matter, but I'm a tolerant kind of guy and if he keeps insisting on it like this I'm willing to keep an open mind.



my hands are up officer. they're up. officer i need to tell you i have a licensed handgun under my keyboard

#36
i am obligated by law to inform you that my hands (which i use to make posts) are a killing weapon (because the posts are so very bad)
#37