Impper posted:
u can drink til 4-5 am in chicago in bars etc.

only some of them.

mistersix posted:
yeah and also with that kind of internal hermeneutics of suspicion machine i think its more than capable automatically suspecting anyone; once it gets past a couple of iterations youre in a vizzini's poison paradox (to coin a phrase) and nothing external can stop it. not that its even an unreasonable machine to be running with things such as they are. there was an old terence mckenna thing i saw where he was talking about living as far into the future as you can, in the context of course of virtualizing the attractor at the end of history. its stuck with me but for my own lived intelligibility i go with a sci-fi representation, which i am acknowledging as stupid enough for me to perform the gesture of hiding it behind a spoiler,

Spoiler!

how would a time traveler live in the past?

of course you gotta think this in contexts of oppression. all of this i consider to fall out of any sort of ethical way of being towards your thrownness. im not sure this constitutes a coherent train of thought but the place i wanted to end up at is that basically its the point where a generic encounter (in which you must act according to universality--how else!) becomes a particular, contingent, existential encounter, which you may just have to let go. trust the other, comrade mitsein; stick with it without getting stuck as the saying goes. incidentally, im not sure this is strictly germane but the other day it occurred to me that that one bit in the 1844 manuscripts that hardt is fond of quoting ("Private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it") is as strong a condemnation of the metaphysics of presence as youll find anywhere else.

i know very well that you know this, as its just sort of a longer way of saying what you said at the top of the page. i felt like pontificating, postesis

Lacan was wrong about women being incapable of being subjects. they too can engage in the hermeneutics of suspicion and convince men that they can only talk about their penises with other men in a rather disastrous attempt at counter-transference. maybe it's something about living in san francisco.

for the same reason, schizoanalysis fails to see that schizophrenic subjects can just as easily see themselves in the rest of us when treated with respect. our insecurities about them are not their fault.

as part of their Bildung, women learn to be weary of men bearing gifts (alcoholic or otherwise). the converse does not hold and there are counterexamples of the form C-M-C'. to see what the world would be like if there weren't we need only turn to that prophet of rape culture:

David Graeber posted:
Unlike with Smith, however, it never occurred to Nietzsche that you could have a world where all such transactions immediately cancel out. Any system of commercial accounting, he assumed, will produce creditors and debtors. In fact, he believed that it was from this very fact that human morality emerged. Note, he says, how the German word schuld means both "debt" and "guilt." At first, to be in debt was simply to be guilty, and creditors delighted in punishing debtors unable to repay their loans by inflicting "all sorts of humiliation and torture on the body of the debtor, for instance, cutting as much flesh off as seemed appropriate for the debt." In fact, Nietzsche went so far as to insist that those original barbarian law codes that tabulated so much for a ruined eye, so much for a severed finger, were not originally meant to fix rates of monetary compensation for the loss of eyes and fingers, but to establish how much of the debtor's body creditors were allowed to take! Needless to say, he doesn't provide a scintilla of evi­dence for this (none exists). But to ask for evidence would be to miss the point. We are dealing here not with a real historical argument but with a purely imaginative exercise.

When humans did begin to form communities, Nietzsche contin­ues, they necessarily began to imagine their relationship to the com­munity in these terms. The tribe provides them with peace and security. They are therefore in its debt. Obeying its laws is a way of paying it back ("paying your debt to society" again). But this debt, he says, is also paid--here too--in sacrifice:

Within the original tribal cooperatives--we're talking about primeval times--the living generation always acknowledged a legal obligation to the previous generations, and especially to the earliest one which had founded the tribe...Here the reigning conviction is that the tribe only exists at all only be­ cause of the sacrifices and achievements of its ancestors--and that people have to pay them back with sacrifices and achieve­ments. In this people recognize a debt which keeps steadily growing because these ancestors in their continuing existence as powerful spirits do not stop giving the tribe new advantages and lending them their power. Do they do this for free? But there is no "for free" for those raw and "spiritually destitute" ages. What can people give back to them? Sacrifices (at first as nourishment understood very crudely), festivals, chapels, signs of honor, above all, obedience--for all customs, as work of one's ancestors, are also their statutes and commands. Do peo­ple ever give them enough? This suspicion remains and grows.

....

There is also every reason to believe that Nietzsche knew the prem­ise was insane; in fact, that this was the entire point. What Nietzsche is doing here is starting out from the standard, common-sense assump­tions about the nature of human beings prevalent in his day (and to a large extent, still prevalent)--that we are rational calculating machines, that commercial self-interest comes before society, that "society" itself is just a way of putting a kind of temporary lid on the resulting con­flict. That is, he is starting out from ordinary bourgeois assumptions and driving them to a place where they can only shock a bourgeois audience.

It's a worthy game and no one has ever played it better; but it's a game played entirely within the boundaries of bourgeois thought. It has nothing to say to anything that lies beyond that. The best response to anyone who wants to take seriously Nietzsche's fantasies about sav­age hunters chopping pieces off each other's bodies for failure to remit are the words of an actual hunter-gatherer--an Inuit from Greenland made famous in the Danish writer Peter Freuchen's Book of the Es­kimo. Freuchen tells how one day, after coming home hungry from an unsuccessful walrus-hunting expedition, he found one of the successful hunters dropping off several hundred pounds of meat. He thanked him profusely. The man objected indignantly:

"Up in our country we are human!" said the hunter. "And since we are human we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. Up here we say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs."

The last line is something of an anthropological classic, and simi­lar statements about the refusal to calculate credits and debits can be found through the anthropological literature on egalitarian hunt­ing societies. Rather than seeing himself as human because he could make economic calculations, the hunter insisted that being truly hu­man meant refusing to make such calculations, refusing to measure or remember who had given what to whom, for the precise reason that doing so would inevitably create a world where we began "comparing power with power, measuring, calculating" and reducing each other to slaves or dogs through debt.

Edited by dm (March 3, 2012 00:27:31)

dm posted:

how are you such a good poster?

discipline posted:
haha remember that time someone made donald a thread monitor and he probated everyone on the forum including himself

did someone purposely make me a thread monitor of the 'gander thread? i thought i did a good job though, i probated impper and myself, i'm not sure what more could be done!

Groulxsmith posted:
i'm genderblind

i'm a polynational classqueer racefuck