/dead/ - Post-Left

>>2759
Well, if you consider yourself unique, then equality would mean recognizing others as unique too. Inequality would be holding them as your superiors or inferiors.

>>2762
>>2762
>Well, if you consider yourself unique, then equality would mean recognizing others as unique too.
In a literal sense, I would have to agree. My unique I exists, as far as I can tell, alongside other I's who are unique. But there is no equality here other than Me and You fitting into the same ontological category.
What I mean is that the Unique famously describes the (creative) nothing, so the equality between them also describes nothing. In other words: their relation could be any. That I am unique and the other I is equally unique is true wether or not I am slave in Rome and they are an patrician, I am peasant and they are a feudal lord, or if I am antifa activist smashing a fashist with a stone. In every case I act upon them and they act upon me as equally unique beings. That is the reason I was curious how you would describe the content of equality without describing characteristics or identity, because if you use it through a stirnerite lense, it becomes meaningless.
So if this was you point all along, I agree: bring about the absolute euqality by declaring everyone equally unique and thusly kill the content of equality once and for all! But the second part of your post leaves me to believe you intended another interpretation.
>Inequality would be holding them as your superiors or inferiors.
You see this doesnt follow: if someone is my superior, be that in a hierarchy or in ability of mastering a certain field or whatever relation you could come up if, he would still be unique. Being unique doesn't have any conditions. Superiority or inferiority aren't disqualifiers when it comes it wether or not You are an unique being. In fact it could be argued that comparing My and Your properties, the set of things that our uniqueness contains, is a better way of identifying the me as an I than the insistence onour equality. Not holding someone as superior or inferior, because you recognise them as an equally unique individual, seems to me to imply that you shouldn't act maliciously towards them or at least in a way that befits a unique I. But this is peak spook territory, because you essentialise oneof their properties, their uniqueness, as their real existence. Stirner describes this with libPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2767
But if you see someone as your superior, and yourself as their inferior, how is that different from seeing both yourself and some other as Man (human being)?

>>2771
First off, somebody being in a superior or inferior position in a hierarchy is not really a matter of opinion - the individual on the top can enfroce their desire and the individual on the bottom has to give their desires up in favor of the others.
This describes a power dynamic which can be observed in the concrete world.
Seeing both yourself and others as Man (human beings) is a moral judgement. It means that you have a concept of what it means to be human (the essence of humanity) and judge people according to it. Since these concepts are only abstract copies of concrete things, you put up an abstraction of humans, something that doesnt describe any one individual but some vague, general human, as their real essence.
Abstractions are ideas and therefore can't be observed in the concrete world.
That's the difference.

Looked up equality in A Little Philosophical Lexicon of Anarchism from Proudhon to Deleuze, what do you think?

>>2782
I like that, thanks for the song recommendation!

>>2780
how about funeral doom?

>>2785
Never heard of it until now. I listened to some songs just now but it didn't really fit with me. I'll try to listen to more later and get a feel for it but yeah, doesn't feel like my thing. I don't really listen to much dark-sounding metal. I think I prefer faster, sloppier music, if that makes sense. Thank you for the music recommendation!

>>2783
Divtech is amazing

>>2741
I am not the one who has been preaching this whole thread how everyone will be magically saved if we subscribe to the correct ideology even through the facts make it absolutely clear that it is impossible. You are deluded.

>>2743
And what ideology was that exactly?

>>2742
t. Capitalist Realist

>>2745
You can scratch the "capitalist" out. Capitalists still believe that large scale agriculture is sustainable and happily keep on destroying the ecosystem for government subsidies.

>>2738
Sure, we might see ecological collapse, mass starvations and millions of refugees, but none of that is gonna stop the capitalist machiene from running if you ask me.

also
>reality of the situation
nice spook

>how do I unionize and start my revolutionary actions without losing the job?
you don't
good for you, you have a job now. Now you can spend all your time and energy for porkie, but hey at least you can eat. Rock the boat at you're expense. Not saying don't try, but be careful and think about why. Do you personally have grievences yet? Have you tried to resolve them?
Personally, I havent found that anyone gives a shit enough to make thier job better, and mangagement knows they can be narcsisistic shits so they dont care about you. All you can do is try to be equally selfish and retarded.
Which is coincidentally the whole goal of pushing this individualized, liberal, gentrified mindset on us. So it's bad to beleive this… but also this is the truth. They want you to think you can't fight them or organize. But also you can't fight them or organize (successfully).

Have a good week waging. I hope you make good money compared to your rent, and don't waste it all on videogames and weed and soda (or anything unhealthy for you).

For real… good luck and stay in good heath anon comrade,and try and make some friends

>>2100
from my experience, there are two types of people:
-the ones who really hate their work
-the ones who have convinced themselves they love their work because they think having a job you like is a condition of success and they wanna see themselves as successful

neither one of them is very easily persuaded into unionising. the first type wants nothing to do with his job, and unionising would usually mean spending extra time and energy on your job, so he doesnt like it. also, these people usually have already reignated any hope of improving their shitty job.
the second type would obviously oppose unionising because they wanna think they love their job, and improving the work situation would be the same as admitting that its not grat. they would probably infrom higher-ups too and try to frustrate your attemps.

gotta be honest: the leftist narrative of 'organise your workplace' is kinda unrealistic. in my country ate least there only exist those unions that have a history dating back to the 20th century. For example, the railroad workers have just started striking again, but their millieu is one that is typically associated with striking and unionising. People already percieve them that way and the railroad workers iudentify with it.
But other than that, there is basically no relevant union work going on. I think it's very hard to establish union culture in 21st century work spaces that just really arent associated with it.

>>2311
Agreed 100% with this post.
Congrats anon. I hope you keep your job.

>>2100
Henlo Anon. Congratulations on your position. I just wanted to add to the cynical perspecive regarding unionization. No matter what sorts of friendships you cultivate at your work place, your coworkers own up to the boss and their job first of all. I think it would be better praxis to agitate in the agora irl and online but it's best to form relationships, share a perspective, work towards small material goals. Self-organize for mutual aid.

>>2312
>the first type wants nothing to do with his job, and unionising would usually mean spending extra time and energy on your job, so he doesnt like it. also, these people usually have already reignated any hope of improving their shitty job.
I'm that guy.

>>2354
>>2337
>>2326
Yes?
https://board.prolesphere.one/
http://hbovvpi5bursxxga7excdp6axzf3zna3gy2pgvmlobrd5pqxj6sq2zad.onion

First 0ch and now this. Someone really does not want us to waste our time online.

Good news friends! >>>/music/2863

When will it come back? I miss talking to someone intelligent.

>>2730
never ever

>>2715
Is supporting the Green Pass a post-left position?

>>2716
idk, ask a post-leftist

>>2725
you think everybody here is required to hold a certain ideology to post?

>>2726
Yes. I had to send the admin my certificate. I thought that was standard procedure.

>>2706
americans arent white

>>2707
es ist gut, deutscher zu sein

>>2708
Ist sehr premium

>>2705
what does that have to do with anything?
ppl who were under roman rule ended up under langobard or frankish rule or whatever. in these new conditions their way of life changed and was no longer roman.

>>2699
> civilisation and mode of production arent the same thing.
Doesn't even matter, after the collapse of Rome their "productive forces" were left to rot. The only continuity is through the Church and that's dogshit.

>>2705
They stopped living under Roman rule, and they liked it. This is not the first time this happened. Civilizations used to collapse all the time and the people living under their rule usually rejoiced. When "barbarians" invaded their civilizations, they welcomed them. That people living under someone's rule should like and defend their rulers was an innovation of the European liberals and nationalists centuries later.

>>2581
Sorry it is written in the big book
> Ass is all perfect! Because, in each moment, ass is all it can be, and never need to be more.

Sewerage systems how build?

>>2583
Tankies don't understand this because their small pseudointellectual brains can't comprehend recursion in a social solution:
throw it next door.

>>2582
lol
quoting the meme line thats always taken out of context by ego-liberals
10/10

>>2587
tf is a ego-liberal?
and from what perspective is this written, ego-conservative?

>>2495
I thought endchan was going to be shut down.

>>2490
end/dead/ BO here, you can create boards by making an account and making a board. Simple process really.

>>2495
>5 posters
thats actually a lot considering that most of the users there are from lefty/dead/ and have really done nothing but rarely posting

another anarchist success story

>>2682
in comparrison to /leftypol/ it clearly is.
not existing means not being shit.

It does not make much sense to me. The original thesis sounds doesn't sound really convincing, and applying it to our present situation does not seem to help us at all. I much prefer this article: https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/66877/engineering-self/

IIRC Jaynes seems to frame "consciousness" as being a bit too foundational to our psychology. What he discusses seems more along the lines of a theory of self, something contained within your language or your "software." Different modes of consicousness make more sense as a tool for interpreting the more fundamental drives and biological states we have. Moving into some new mode of consciousness or theory of self does make sense in theory if the mode of production is transforming.

I see where the article is going and sure it makes some important points about where people's heads are at right now, but I think that the change we're seeing now is a different one. The bicameralism-to-consciousness change is a change in theory of self, but the current breakdown is in our relationship not to ourselves but to the reality around us. We mostly have a sense of who we are, but the heuristic failure being described indicates a breakdown in our ability to trust information about the world. Many alternative interpretations of reality are competing for our acceptance, so perhaps the change to happen here would be in our ability to imagine a "multiverse" of different interpretations that different people believe in, and someone with the new mindset would be more adept at "traversing" across different "alternate realities" by internalizing and understanding different beliefs about the way the world is, without necessarily accepting those beliefs themselves.

The capacity to do this sort of thing is already apparent when it comes to fiction. People love to get engrossed in fictional realities and to develop an understanding of some comic book universe and so on. The same kind of obsession with "lore" can be applied to the real world (as we see with people like history nerds), but also to the different political and social theories that compete with each other. Maybe in a similar way to the fiction Jaynes was using as a reference point to explore a change in psychology, contemporary fiction can tell us something about where people's minds are going. The multiverse concept has become pretty popular in recent years in fairly mainstream movies and TV.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvUzdJSK4x8
Something to consider. I was watching this and they mention the bicameral mind at around 7:30. It is mentioned as a theory that posits that humanity needed a long historical development to reach consciousness. They claim the opposite, that (pre)history is best understood if we disregard the usual trope of the "stupid savage" living in blissful ignorance and assume that people in the past were aware of themselves and knew what they were doing.