/dead/ - Post-Left

Self-annihilation alone will leave you a helpless slave to your impulses. Why? Because you cannot escape the purpose of an identity: to give you coordinates, to help you navigate the world. There is no such thing as abandoning your identity; you either paint your own mask and wear it, or you wear the mask that others will paint for you - to merely destroy your mask is to identify with the mask of madness.
The irony is that a life of complete rejection is precisely what capitalism results in. It's a system that encourages us to reject our desires so that we may identify with our impulses. It is a system that pushes us to throw away our identities in favor of the carefully crafted identities that we are sold. The nihilistic goal of abandoning the ego without replacement is a mirror of such self-cannibalization.
You should neither reject capitalism nor should you accept it, because in both instances the result is the same: wear the mask that the other paints. No, the only solution is to see this dialectic through to the end and start anew. You have to abandon your identity in order to create a new one. You have to give up your dreams in order to dream differently. Either way, your only free choice is to accept responsibility for your desires and the pain that comes with being free. There is no easy way out.

>>2925
identities are mostly just a habit of thought, it is learned behavior. You can choose to think about stuff unrelated to an identity, at first it will require a little concentration and deliberate attention, once that becomes your new habit, you're free.

>>2936
who are you, this comment feels like something i'd write but i dont remember writing it

wait fuck nvm your conclution isnt dialectical enough. good try comr8

to fix my post make these edits: The new identity you take on cant just be another particular identity, but one which rises above all identities by explicitly embracing progress/negation/surpassing. Without that you fall into a stupid loop, where you have a solid identity, you can negate it if you want, but only to take on another identity. This is true in some ways but it's not so futile - while yes in order to function you need some positive identity (or values, coordinates, etc. to identify with), this identity doesnt have to resemble the old one, or any unexamined identity. It can and should be fundamentally different, so that rather than staying fixed and tribal, it's expansive and universal, self-overcoming without having to accept some outside identity over and over, or being stuck (as you said) in the madness of pure negation.

Also interestingly, it seems like many schizophrenics probably don't even go all the way to self-negation, but hold on to both - the progressive and regressive directions, and make themselves really crazy by not just progressing the thought and accepting negation wholesale. (just from my reading of R. D. Laing and other shit :P)

>>2925
Read Plato and the Upanishads.

>>2937
This. You can't just make a clean break from your identity. You have to break it as you break a habit. It's difficult because habits are comfortable and lure you into them. It's like a desire path or pleasure path (picrel). Once the habit is well-trod it becomes more easy and appealing, while an alternative route is less appealing and might be a little rougher. But you have to carve out the new path over time through repeated use while you let the other path disappear through disuse. You may even be able to speed up the disappearance in some way by deliberately provoking the stimuli that would prompt the habit and then choosing to do something different and new instead, sort of analogous to aerating the soil and putting down grass seed or something. Don't think of the process as one of creating or building, but as one of growing. You are an organism and you will get a lot farther if you treat yourself like a soft squishy thing that has to be molded over time and induced to adaptation.

they right

uygha howd you let yourself be trolled by a lenincap?

Is eating bugs actually good for the environment?

tankies everywhere are generally retarded

>>2889
Tankies are like religious fanatics that defend even the mistakes that their sect did.

If they were not retarded they wouldn't be tankies.

>>2889
It's common to all of them

>>2889
In my experience "tankies" are by far the least retarded of mainstream leftists. Most self-proclaimed post leftists, even on this board, are liberals in denial. Most anarchists and berniebros are indistinguishable. Not all of them, of course. But I'll take a random tankie over a random anarchist any day of the week.

>>2613
ok im not an egoist anymore this post has convinced me how gay it is

>>2885
what does the OP have to do with egoim?

First the basic questions.
What the fuck are you talking about and why did you post it here?

>>2893
sir this is a /dead/…

>>2894
>sir this is a /dead/…
Yes. You still didnt explain. Why did you feel the need to post you schizo ramblings un /dead/, anon?

OP is baby and wants to be taken care of by mommy.

>>2864
Like lost children we live our unfinished adventures.

why yes I do want to be a househusband
how could you tell?

>>2864
Anything to take the unfathomable pain of living away

>>2803
thanks anon

Texhnolyze

>>2806
came here to post this, the other 2 ABe animes give this feel too

IM GONNA

> until my toughts reset
How to achieve this?

>>2557
Don't.

>>2557
have fun, don't forget to bring food

>>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