Medical Nemesis, Techno-fetishism, And Black Magic In Medicine

[LUH 3417]

I think it's on an air force base now, i saw a photo of it recently on an air force base tho i dont know w

I can give you his email, i think he likes to chat about that kijd of thing. Do you mean voyeur in the sense of detachment? I suspect debord was a foundation for the more militant "left wing" groups, like students for a democratic society, although i know debord would take offense to that, and justifiably so. My onoy dissgreement with debord is that i think there's a definite "them" versus whatever innate human concept of power, but then again this mass psychosis does seem to he a human property, and i can definitely see why debord is compatible with ray's physiological/organismal philosophy. In a way, ray is the greatest ... philosopher or observer of them all, because of his emphasis on the stress response in society. It's good to he reminded of that sometimes because i get bogged down in the system pretty often.

It’s kind of hip to write bestsellers now about how game theory applies to social and financial success. I think there’s something insidious about the entire thing.

 

[LUH 3417]

I have ray's email, i just never considered asking him about political stuff. I already bother him a lot with practical questions. I did send him a poem once, that was sort of inspired by his work

as far as debord being a voyeur... its hard to explain what I mean. I guess even tho I've never read hegel I'm skeptical of hegelianism--of grand, unifying theories. And the spectacle is a grand, unifying theory--it's not just some media theory stuff like mcluhan about how media changes us, it's a totalizing theory. Like "the spectacle is not a collection of images, it is a social relation mediated by images". So when you have a grand theory that has a kind of hegelian telos about how everything is part of the Spectacle--even though in some ways it seems incredibly correct, it also seems to lead to giving up and becoming sort of a voyeur. Debord was an extreme alcoholic--almost admirable he could write that well while being that drunk constantly--he claimed to have been drunk his whole adult life, literally... eventually got gout and killed himself because his physical reality was unbearable. While the situationists did have some contributions, like partially stirring up may 68 revolt, it could be argued that that was a spectacle of revolt, and that


I'm glad I read society of the spectacle. I don't know, it's still written very beautifully, I got a lot out of it. And Situationism should be seen as an incredibly radical and romantic moment. I guess sometimes I doubt the efficacy of the theory, since the SI only had a brief moment in time of existence.

In debord's defense, though, something he said that reminds me of religious orthodoxy or iconoclastic purity in the best sense (I really admire orthodoxy tbh)--he responded to criticisms of being a "Stalinist" for kicking out people from the SI that didn't share his views (a pretty ridiculous claim when you think about how the SI valorized council communism and criticized Stalin and even criticized Lukacs for not criticizing Stalin and called Stalinism a form of Spectacle): He said something like "We are just one small group who deviates from the dominant viewpoint... we just want to keep one piece of ideological space for ourselves that isn't aligned with the dominant ideology" I'm paraphrasing horribly but the gist is that it's sometimes seen as authoritarian to adhere to an ideological purity, even when that group is just a small group that doesn't evangelize or something.


So I guess I don't know, about the SI. I don't want to write them off at all. I also don't want to romanticize them, I more want to understand them, and it's hard. I think that there's modern scholarship which seeks to deradicalize them, which is bad--like mackenzie wark's book

I wonder if baudrillard distinguishes the hyper real as the world of spectacle and the real as real. I doubt it’s that easily delineated though

 

[energyandstruct]

It’s kind of hip to write bestsellers now about how game theory applies to social and financial success. I think there’s something insidious about the entire thing.

that's nassim taleb's whole thing, but at least he's funny as ****, unintentionally

 

[LUH 3417]

that's nassim taleb's whole thing, but at least he's funny as ****, unintentionally

This obsession with mimesis and samensss reminds me of asexual lizards and daughter cells

 

[energyandstruct]

An example

He's really obsessed with letting everyone know that he's mediterranean not arab, it's hilarious

 

[LUH 3417]

An example

He's really obsessed with letting everyone know that he's mediterranean not arab, it's hilarious

“I belong to Parmenides!!!!!!”

 

[energyandstruct]

honestly memes/jokes about taleb's insecurity and temper are the funniest thing I've found on twitter, my fav by far

 

[energyandstruct]

he may be write/interesting with his whole fragility vs antifragility thing, but he reached a point of self-parody

 

[energyandstruct]

there's a meme of taleb that's just like the words "not my haplogroup you imbecile not my haplogroup my imbecile not my haplogroup you imbecile" over a picture of his face

 

[kyle]

Bunch of gobbledygook.

 

[LUH 3417]

Bunch of gobbledygook.

Welcome to Babel

 

[goodandevil]

I have ray's email, i just never considered asking him about political stuff. I already bother him a lot with practical questions. I did send him a poem once, that was sort of inspired by his work

as far as debord being a voyeur... its hard to explain what I mean. I guess even tho I've never read hegel I'm skeptical of hegelianism--of grand, unifying theories. And the spectacle is a grand, unifying theory--it's not just some media theory stuff like mcluhan about how media changes us, it's a totalizing theory. Like "the spectacle is not a collection of images, it is a social relation mediated by images". So when you have a grand theory that has a kind of hegelian telos about how everything is part of the Spectacle--even though in some ways it seems incredibly correct, it also seems to lead to giving up and becoming sort of a voyeur. Debord was an extreme alcoholic--almost admirable he could write that well while being that drunk constantly--he claimed to have been drunk his whole adult life, literally... eventually got gout and killed himself because his physical reality was unbearable. While the situationists did have some contributions, like partially stirring up may 68 revolt, it could be argued that that was a spectacle of revolt, and that


I'm glad I read society of the spectacle. I don't know, it's still written very beautifully, I got a lot out of it. And Situationism should be seen as an incredibly radical and romantic moment. I guess sometimes I doubt the efficacy of the theory, since the SI only had a brief moment in time of existence.

In debord's defense, though, something he said that reminds me of religious orthodoxy or iconoclastic purity in the best sense (I really admire orthodoxy tbh)--he responded to criticisms of being a "Stalinist" for kicking out people from the SI that didn't share his views (a pretty ridiculous claim when you think about how the SI valorized council communism and criticized Stalin and even criticized Lukacs for not criticizing Stalin and called Stalinism a form of Spectacle): He said something like "We are just one small group who deviates from the dominant viewpoint... we just want to keep one piece of ideological space for ourselves that isn't aligned with the dominant ideology" I'm paraphrasing horribly but the gist is that it's sometimes seen as authoritarian to adhere to an ideological purity, even when that group is just a small group that doesn't evangelize or something.


So I guess I don't know, about the SI. I don't want to write them off at all. I also don't want to romanticize them, I more want to understand them, and it's hard. I think that there's modern scholarship which seeks to deradicalize them, which is bad--like mackenzie wark's book

Well firstly, thanks for the background on the may 68 revolts, because i saw they were alluded to a lot, but the whole historical backfround of the si movement, i was somewhat ignorant of. I really like the mention of the soweto revolt in call it sleep, if seemed very human and what you said made me think of, what i think debord wrote about negation, and i think it's somewhat ironic, iirc, that for all he wrote, very effectively, about negation, and i believe ot being part of the spectacle, that he still adopted the same ideological framework, viz. Capital, labor, &etc. Debors was ver6 useful for me as a stepping stone to my philosophy today, which really isnt a philosophy so much. I just try to listen to how i really feel about things, and act on that, as much as possible. And that's really the person that's vilkified in society, the person that believes more in him or herself, in their perceptions, than anyone else. I think thay we should believe we're ****88, one, because we are, and two, because nothing else spurs action. When i was younger it was about changing society, and nlw that im older it's about changing as many people as you can. A lot of that derives from ray's work, the certainty of the truly functioning organism is inviolate. I do feel like i have the right to destroy people's beliefs and replace them with my own, but that requires people skills, which i've always abhorred and been phobic of. Anyways, the whole notion of freedom, i think is very damaging and is a fairy tale, because i dont think it's ever existed. I felt we are here to be the organism we are, and to think of an animal stop trying to gratify it's own purpose because it believes in some existential notion of granted "rights", has become very foreign to me and my life has gotten so much better for it. Squirrels dont consider what sort of societ6 they want, they just look for nuts and chase each other up trees, and sometimes they unfortunately get horrifying parasites. I like debord because he put sand paper on society of the spectacle (i heard), soas to destroy the other books next to his. I send debord to people when the real truth is too much for them, for example i habe to take this stupid health leadership class, and my teacher would get in my face. Trying to figure out how to get to people is the skill im trying to develop now. It's all about how many can i get to before i die. Anyways, thanks for the info on debord and the general background of the si movement, i found it refreshing

 

[goodandevil]

I

What do you think about John Nash?

Think it's actually interesting that you mention this because i saw adam curtis' films, which are made for people like us, talking about how the baby boomers ****88 society up with their selfishness, but i think it's interesting they made a movie about him as ann raynd and libertarianism is coming to prominence. He seems to fit in pretty well with that social movement.

 

[goodandevil]

the part of society of the spectacle that I find most interesting, really really good stuff, is the part that has a historical-materialist theory of the development of time...


it's so good, and there is something really inspiring about the idea that a revolution is not just to take back your piece of the material pie, it's also to take back the time that was stolen from you. That's a lot more poetic and rousing than just universal basic income, or whatever.

A communist I knew on twitter, who blogs about this stuff, always said "communism is free time and nothing else". I like to think ray would agree with this view. He is utopian in the sense that he wants to get rid of aging, etc... and provide the best possible environment for the organism...

I think for the united states, if there was more of a collective unconscious against war, then we wouod have a better life materially. I think people falling for the justification fkr wars is what's collapsijg the countryx because we were meant to be the world police eijce day 1, we're free and all that ***t. I think eastern europe/western russia might be good ppaces to be for what's coming. Ray also mentioned western south america, in addition to russia. I expect things to start heating uo after 2020, primarily because so much russian mikitary equipment comee online then, but for other reasons as well. I subscribe to the world economic forum newsletter, and carnegie institute, &c to get clues as to what's planned. You might like this guy, i like the pragmatic feel of his monologues:

 

[Marie2000]

I’m pretty sure TK was prime MKultra fodder. The manuscript reads like it was written by multiple people. No doubt he was brilliant, but I’m almost certain he was used to carry out the violent attacks and usher in a mistrust of anyone espousing the horrors and realities of techno fascism. Now we have the association of the unabomber (unibrow bombers, Islam) and resistance against technology deeply embedded in the collective minds of Americans.

Hi, im young *23* and I have little idea of what you grasp and are speaking about. My generation is probably same. I think is important that my generations knows about this shades of history so we dont fall into the current false narrative that will serve to shape the world in adverse ways beneficial for who ever is promoting it.

I have a question: who is TK and could we start a telgram group to exchange this vast important andhidden otherwise information?