/edu/ - Education

>>23589
>who and what is able to be "liberated"?
People from the pathology caused by heterosexuality.
>we eroticise what we cannot possess
Are fetishes not produced, precisely in moments when something else cannot be acquired? Lack does not in itself necessitate the production of desire, it needs to be mediated. Absence in itself is as much not-being as it is not-yet-being, conceptually a matrix, even a priori it need not remain as such.
>thus, eros must be sublimated by its alienation for us to truly "liberate" it via indirect social expression.
I cannot prove you wrong on this one, because i have yet to confront the object of my desire and confirm it to embody pleasure. The type of sublimation you describe does not seem to resolve the relevant contradictions though, only to displace them.

>>23591
>well to me, heterosexual identity obscures a homoerotic (bisexual) essence
Only insofar as each of us can be socialized into any sexual attraction, where heterosociality creates the conflict you describe.
>you are just a foolish essentialist who thinks sex isnt social, but is mechanical
Even though a conversation isn't the mechanical relaying of speech either, it can both take place in the context of various power relations and without such a context. I'm not an idealist, we cannot return to a pre-patriarchical state if there ever was one, we only have the means to negate it.
>the foot fetish for example on the face of it seems more religious than sexual
No, it is very obviously not, i've seen foot fetishists themselves explain it: Despite not being very sexual on the face of it, you rarely see a strangers feet therefore seeing and going so far as to touch someones feet is a very intimate act.

>>23593
>well, truth be told, my deepest point is that without heterosexuality
The disappearance of heterosexual attraction would naturally necessitate the disappearance of the sexes, cue various arguments about the transitional stages of a post-oedipal society.
>but negation can only mean mediation.
This is where you're wrong. The double negation sublates the former foundation in its own positive movement.
>if you could paint over class society with idpol, the bourgeoisie would have done it by now.
Would you say the same about race relation? The current psychosexual condition is inherently interwoven with class society. Firestone argues exploiting women on the basis of their reproductive capacity was their anthropological origin.
>sex being a form of religious ritual
Rather i think it is the opposite. Religion being the alienated expression of human social relations can itself carry sexual connotations.

>>23595
>is patriarchy a form of class society, or is class society just a form of patriarchy?
As a mathematician i figure there is no way to know outside of anthropological research, because both can be restated in their respective terms.
>since phallus emerges naturally from the genital relation
If it comes down to it, castrating every existing phallus is not outside the realm of possibility. Artificial phalli are plentiful after all.
>how do you mean?
Race relations are also interwoven with capitalism, therefore you cannot "paint over class society [specifically the aspects which the relations are contingent on] with idpol", yet deeming racial equality as functionally impossible would be even absurder.

>>23597
>humans lived under matriarchies, but they werent any more peaceful
And in primitive communism people were only united in barely subsisting. It's never a question of returning to a previous state.
>i embrace contradiction
This is again where we fundamentally differ. All contradictions need to be resolved, it is a question of how not if. I don't know how a post-oedipal would look like, but i wouldn't rule out any deranged lesbian death squads that would put the NKVD to shame (>ᴗ•)

>>23599
>imagining that you can have the perfect orgasm, or taste the perfect food
This would be utopianism. I'm arguing about what aspects of a new society i see in the old and honestly admitting i don't have a clue how to get there.
>we must be mature and realise that all things must be mediated
Numerous contradictions have intensified and ultimately been resolved throughout history. In the struggle for the women's vote, there was a clear organization along gender lines. Even though the prospect for change looks bleak both in terms of marxism and feminism, we have a framework of analysis and thus the means to discover revolutionary potential. While women do not have the same timebomb as the economy has attached to it, crises compound and there is bound to be a right moment to strike, organize, then strike again.
>it'll be your balls being cut off first.
I don't have strong feelings about them either way, only then you would need artificial testosterone because every human requires some of it. If they gave me enough painkillers and anatomical guidance, i would unironically do it myself. Who did you think you were talking to?

>>23601
>a new mode of production is advancing doesnt mean the entire world has caught up
Things leave noticeable remnants as often as they don't. Looking back at tribal modes of productions there are patterns that remain in modern society and many that don't, you cannot wholesale claim no creative destruction has taken place. Do you honestly want to suggest people from a millenia ago would understand todays society as a "reorientation" of their own?
>weltgeist
You mean the human spririt i.e. the sum of all scientific and cultural knowledge organized by various institutions and individuals.
>i can go deeper into the qabalism
You've peaked my interest. I never understood liber 777.

>>23603
>primitive modes of exchange like gifting are still in use
What about the disappearance of dowry, or is that too specific? It looks like we will continue this semantics game, unless you clearly say what you think differentiates modes of exchange from other societal features, allowing them to remain in some capacity. How do you demarcate contradictions that may only be mediated?
>therefore the mind is a closed system
You might call me verbally regressive for this, but i see language as merely a transcription of thought. The mind works like an unstructured graph of qualiae, even words are ultimately dissolved into singular nodes only defined by their associations. If we hook up a modern computer to a teletypewriter and use it as our only means of interaction, in which ways does it constra1n the types of computations that may be done?
Flood detected; Post discarded. ajab

>>23605
>capitalism literally cannot afford to proletarianise the world
This an interesting concept that mirrors the unequal development inherent in imperialist economy, but wouldn't the falling rate of profit sooner or later drive capitalists to cannibalize these reservers? Are there simply too many of these stabilizing factors, does profit need to approach zero first? For example in the west it seems like gift-giving, that has long been connected to social capital, has become perceived as even more transactional lately. Compare that to the pre-modern idea of hospitality.
>so basically, you think we have too many words?
Thought is less constra1ned than language. We use nuance in language to approximate the nuance in our own internal thought patterns.
>the mind is always mediated
True in a formative sense, yet a developed mind is after all able to assume the alienated position of a philosopher. There is a nuance here or intiuitive and gnostic thought would be impossible.

>>23607
>the crisis of capital is coming to a head thus, where it will either offer UBI or it will crumble (it is already crumbling after all).
So if it is fated to collapse, all outmoded modes of exchange that feed into the economy will likewise, or do you assume capitalism will be superseded by something precisely because it can reterritorialize them?
>monetisation =/= value-creating
The value is created by stimulating demands for gifts, cash being frowned upon outside of certain social contexts like a childs birthday or a wedding.
>for us to conceive a thought, it must be expressed in some concrete form
Yes, but once we have received enough forms (i think this is the psychological stage of realization), we can in some cases autonomously perceive of the world around us and freely adapt our conceptions to suit reality. If dialectics is the motion of thought after all, the wealth of synthesized thought is greater than that which we can realistically receive, while still occupyin g the entire spectrum of abstract and concrete. You're right that language can state some thoughts more clearly, this clarity coming at a considerable cost. Combing through infinity for something is easy when you're doing it all the time. I find myself thinking of past events, past emotions, past thought processes more often than going through the letters of the alphabet to find the right word (i do this only when struggling to express myself in language).

>>23617
>i consider capitalism to primarily be a mode of distribution
Commodity exchange directly gives rise to commodity production, both reinforcing the precedence of bourgeois interests and naturally encroaching on other modes.
>the reserve army of labour then (as a surplus proletariat) have proven to be the revolutionary subject
From my cursory knowledge it appears this group has often supplied the foot soldiers to revolution and reaction alike. Do they constitute a revolutionary subject with their own class interests or are they only fit to be used in the name of anothers?
>re-distribution is the key transition from capitalism into socialism
I don't see how you could have commodity production without commodity exchange. Isn't state capitalism the natural solution to the task, socializing industry from the bottom up?
>well i was using a marxist concept of value.
I should have phrased that more clearly. Raising the social expectations for gitf-giving grows the market for gift products, that can consequently be exploited, thus raising the rate of profit in this industry. Maybe your argument that consumerism indicates a shift towards the more forceful cultivation of new markets is accurate, but i see this as a thread existing from its mercantilist origins and already becoming very prominent in imperalist exploitation.

>by forms of thought, do you mean something like an alphabet and grammar?
By its nature it is something i cannot freely observe. I only know that concepts come to me faster than words, because when thinking in words i noticeable subvocalize each syllable.
>well all languages are self-limiting
The conceptual beauty of all language (programming languages included) its being as thought. It may be endlessly modified, be adapted and mutate itself into whatever serves its function. The tarot perfectly embodies this: There are various orthodox interpretations of the arcana, yet the common approach is to meditate on them and derive your own meanings from a particular deck. This creates a symbolic language describing numerous personal, social and metaphysical relatioships to a degree of sophistication beholden to the reader.

>>23575
Methinks this is mostly projection. Because most young love isnt anywhere like this. That's an adult impression.
And irony is. Adults are more tyrannical in their way they look down on the opposite sex and lower age groups

>>21669
Wdym? It is modern. Especially since it was written after World War Two

>>21004
>>21155
Vast majority of classic works are this.
And especially for works that existed before the printing press, who knows what the original story was?
Theyve been subject to revision so many times.

I'm going to read some real shithead fascist theory to look what basis they build upon. Julius Evola comes to mind and mein Kampf ofc. Any recommendations? I'm not looking to rread from front to back, just enough to get the gist of it.

>>23672
That's mostly due to social conditioning of young adults.
Irony is, I find that adult love has the same problem.
Also, young women who complain about their bfs being clingy are the same ones who complain about not getting any adoration.

>>23581
Man is not above the animals.
The problem with modern society is that everyone acts like any sort of incident is the first of it's kind
People think all problems are caused by social media or smartphones.
Irony was, the pre-Internet days had alot more hubris.
People used to spread rumors like crazy
People would skip town to cheat on their spouses and maintain bastard children for years.
People used to do crazy sports activities that would involve death. Street brawling, live ammunition war re-enactments, staged train crashes, etc.
People fetishize history while refusing to engage with it logistically.

King Solomon says "There's nothing new under the sun".
Despite this, humans are willfully solipsistic.

The whole MAGA era is especially telling of this

>>23577
>>23576
>>23575
Idk why people like to pathologise male psychosexuality based on their social relations with their mothers.

People always wanna complain about "mommas boys" or just mother-son relations in general.
Boys are not allowed to be loved without being pathologised by society as being spoiled/enabled.

Yet nobody complains about daddy's girls.
Girls are given lots of affection from mom and dad without philosophical harassment.

Why is that?

>>23577
> this is why the alienating object of the father is part of positive development, since it allows us to come apart from the mother (by unconsciously revealing her sin; lest we become catholics, worshipping the "virgin mother")

That's a cliche machismo conservative talking point. And I disagree with that because it reduces the sexes to cartoonish stereotypes.
Most male faux pas is overcredited to "fatherlessness". If that's the case, then it means fathers are inefficient entities.

>>23672
> most men never forget their first love (while women do). the case of oedipal attachment is clear - thats why


Wrong. It's because society is gyno centric ethicality.
If men were forgetful of their first lives they'd be accused of chauvinism.
Alot of women also remember their first lives but they're not encouraged to appreciate them because young women are told that they're "better than that"

>>23598
>>23596
>>23594
What about the Electra complex

>>20931
That's an insult to pigeons

So with Chinas recent crackdown on gajillionaires and the apparent collapse of the usa, i am forced to reconcile with the the fact Deng may have been onto something. Are there any reading resources that might explain how in the world the economic planners didnt get replaced by capitalist stooges?

>>23683
Start here.
https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/selected-works-vol-1-1938-1965/

>>23689
>the feminist truth ofc is that women dont owe men anything.

This right here is the answer to all of our problems with heterosexual relations.

>the conservative logic is that the father "makes" you a man by submitting you to a series of ritual traumas, but the psychoanalytic logic is that you just need a minimal alienation from the mother (an inaccessibility, represented by the father), so as to desire her, without being consumed by her (otherwise you get a generation, in tandem with market failure, who live in "mother's basement" [the womb] simulating an eternal childhood. this is oedipal dysfunction, and so i would say a real "conservative" should want to regulate the housing market to give his children an independent heterosexuality, not subject his children to the "challenges" of "competition". there is a positive and negative orientation of masculinity, then).

Irony is, most of our arrested developmental folks were born with fatherly influences.

But I agree with your last sentence about how "competition" is not a virtue but rather a farce.

>no, i disagree. i think men just love at a deeper level, since they yearn for mother. it is ALWAYS men who complain that they love their partner more.

You might be right
I did say four and half years ago that men are sentimental beings, more so than women.
Men are always trying to "save the day", thinking themselves as the superhero and end up falling on their faces sometimes literally.
(Especially if you watch romcom movies).

>all societies condition its forms of love. there is no "pure" affection, but it is always mediated

Society complain about teenage love yet the adults fall into the same traps that teenagers do but even more potent in consequence.

Society likes to brag about "adult" love being more finalized but from what I see, people are just bored and sneak around to "rejuvenate" themselves.

>>23684
Ty

>>23696
This is a not the worst take, actually. Especially taking """continental philosophy'"" at face value, zizek et al. But unfortunately, this is divorced from reality, as per usual. What one would perhaps call "idealism". Butler is very neitzchean tbf.

I can't watch the video unfortunately, so I can only speculate what this moron is saying. Transvestites are one of two things, men in drag, or men dressing up as women. Transsexuals isn't even a category nowadays.

A reactionary is completely divorced from reality, as per usual. It's all so tiresome. It feels like the spectacle isn't even related to actual reality, but we're somehow forced into it, and give our opinions about literal non-issues. Like the toilet ban in middle of fucking nowhere USA. Or trans people in the Olympics (a made up fantasy scenario that is completely irrelevant to all 8 billion motherfuckers alive on this earth, except the 10 other olympic competitors in the fantasy scenario).

So, so tiresome.

>>23697
midwit in every sense of the word.
I remember when I thought like you.
Keep reading.

>>23744
Good argument. Useful insights.
>this is also why populism is inherently right-wing, since it seeks to abandon universality for an exclusive generality
It falters here; The Communist counter argument is that real universality is in the objective condition of the Proletariat.

Also polite hint over at → >>23752

>>23756
I loved what I saw from tiktok before it came under burger control.

Research on bluesky topology + bonus text.

have been reading >>>22808 Canada in the world (thank you to all the admins, mods, and posters that make accessing these books possible)
My god this country sucks ass and i wanna change it. specifically there was a Don Cherry quote that i wanna share b/c it was funny
Today i am sick, and i'm planning on stockpiling some weed and doing nothing until my cold goes away.

I have a secret pleasure with bodybuilding history. Despite being a Randian, egoist goober with some very questionable theories on gym routines, Mentzer was showing some interesting focus on critiquing the ideology surrounding gym culture. As far as I know, he is the only man to have critiqued the social aspect of the gym in any serious way. Everyone else defends it.

One of the main points he makes to demystify going to the gym 5+ days a week, is that he points out there is a "loneliness" factor motivating people. He theorizes that all the "knowledge" of gym "truths" are artificially fabricated to justify going to the gym for as long as possible, so they can be in connection to something they feel is "real." So, for example, 5-6 day routines first serve the purpose of getting "real" gym goers to the gym almost every day, rather than some sort of scientific proof that this is optimal. Thus, if you can't commit to this, you are cast to the "outside group" for scorn. Interestingly, the weekend is not emphasized in bodybuilding routines, as Mike mocks that Sundays are taken off for the sabbath rather than any biological necessity. This creates a situation where people take a reprieve at the gym after/before a day of work, which Marxists know is alienating. Once they don't have to work that day, suddenly the motivation disappears.

In a way, some of his work is a very infantile attempt at critical theory. Sure, he's a lolbertarian individualist, but I strip away the ideology to look at the underlying intent and I was kind of impressed. With the fascist undertones of gym culture, which I know gets mocked but it is real phenomenon if you've been deep in the culture and I'm not just talking about voting Republican, Freudian analysis of the violent reaction against critique of the ideology applied in Mentzer case. He relentlessly critiques tradition, like the "holiness" of three, three days a week full body, three sets, ect. Instead of disagreeing, pretty much all critics of him instead set out to absolutely destroy him.
>he's a meth addict
>he's a sore loser
>he's a grifter selling tapes
>he's a liar
>he's a cuck
>he's a homosexual (not beating the fascist accusations with this one)

His meth addiction was also clearly a self-medication for undiagnosed ADHD, which even today is stigmatized as only existing in children. His hyperfocus on bodybuilding is the first clear sign, and then his later theory about proving the minimum amount of exercise needed is just built off of that hyperfixation. He considered this book his magnum opus, and the vast majority of it is just his attempt at philosophy. It's shitty philosophy, but the intent is what's interesting.

Philosophically, I know he was a critic of subjective idealism as there is an interview somewhere he mentions it specifically. He was also a proponent of "progressive education" or learning by applying the philosophy he studied to his life. In a way, it resembles the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" and this is why I called it essentially "accidental" critical theory, applied to his life around the gym. People Mentzer wrong when they try to label him as trying to become the model, Nietzschean Übermensch, like most bodybuilders (Arnold biggest example) strove to be. If you actually read his work, he implores the audience to attack the brainworms of tradition and convenient structures (10 fingers = 10 reps) that casted a lens over their everyday life. This is the true goal of critical theory, not exclusive to "high art" like many people who read Adorno or whatever get stuck on. Even if he wasn't a Marxist, I realized I really valued his attempts and I'm sad that he's dead because that basically the only attempt to escape dogmatism in something that many people take for granted. Everyone else is like "I'm the great man, follow me."

And to reiterate, I'm not calling for becoming a dogmatic Mentzer follower like the HITbros. I'm appreciating his attempts at dissecting ideology floating over the gym.

On Chapter 3 of Capital: New Translation

Learning about commodity circulation and how money arose and transitioned from gold to fiat

Hi anons, I was thinking if the classic Marxist concept of alienation has any echo on the post modern "narrative" , has any post modern thinker written about alienation?

>>23585
>No.23586
You know, you are a fascist, yes? So, have you read Evola? Not the version that is conventionally available, but the translations of his more serious Italian work. His dialogue against other fascists. He called himself a super fascist not as a meme, but precisely because he sought to transcend natural laws themselves, and therefore, to go even farther in the original rejection of essentialism (a rejection which was actually argued for by the fascists… in the beginning, at least!). He seriously made the case that the laws of nature are subject to change in the penetrative, transcended sense, rather than being caught in a cycle of permutated expressions. Not just with magical idealism, but in direct polemics, see for example here, if you can understand without the broader context:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160313135448/https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=7396
I had to use the wayback machine to find this, that's how obscure it is. The primary website is down, as far as I can tell. Here's part 2 and part 3, respectively:
https://juliusevola.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/32-giovanni-gentile-part-21.pdf

https://juliusevola.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/33-giovanni-gentile-part-31.pdf

Finished Economic Science Fictions by various authors (ed. William Davies, 2018), a bunch of essays looking at science fiction through the lens of economics and the other way around.

Ha-Joon Chang's essay is OK, the rest is meh to godawful. You can expect the average contributor here to be that kind of guy who doesn't know what "penultimate" means but likes to say it anyway. A better bit early in was criticism of the cyberpunk trope of the revolutionary lone individual or tiny group (and likewise there was criticism of the twin trope of the big bad boss or tiny cabal of exceptionally evil people). Later, I was treated with a short story with exactly that and it also got an evil mega-corporation with a big ventilation shaft. Oh evil mega-corporations, will they ever learn. (Or maybe they did and that's why they want to make us all fat.)

An actual passage from one of the essays:
<Land is valued due to the continuous demand for mineral and water resources, meaning that even today mining is the physical action analogous to extraction, as mining punctuates the differing logics of accumulation throughout historical time. Therefore, in terms of the global struggle around labour, mining remains fundamental as a site of exploitation and class consciousness; but it also symbolises a meeting point between the natural and the technological. The film Moon (2009) by Duncan Jones explores the future of mining, now taking place on the Moon.
Isn't it interesting how mining is analogous to extraction. Bet you thought it was extraction, you stupid pleb. Or maybe you said to yourself: "Hmm mining being analogous, hmmmmmm hmm it used to be that way, but… even today??" Mining is also symbolizing something. Imagine what it feels like to have your esteemed logics of accumulation punctuated by mining, I hate that! Very profound that bit, ahem, think about that. Now try reciting above passage into a camera with a straight face.

I have been thinking a bit about the software industry, and whether or not software even counts as a commodity, as it replication is practically cost less. It has an obvious use-value, but I don't get what its exchange value would be. Therefore I question how would someone make money, in a hypotechical ethical manner would work. Would it be donations, with a bar showing the needed money per year be the play, with a drop of the project after shown lack of interest, be the play?

>>24160
Consider Marx's Fragment on Machines
Video unrelated

Finished listening to Presumed Guilty. Chemerensky is one of the forefront constitutional scholars of our age and no one in power ever listens to him. His conclusions are lib “they could pass laws” but his analysis of the historical ramifications of Supreme Court jurisprudence on criminal law is pristine and depressing as hell. Every right set out in the constitution has been gutted to hell and back since the Warren court, which itself was milquetoast at best. After all, they still decided terry.

>>24177
Thanks!

>>24184
Finished death of a salesman. I bet it’s better live.

Drunkenly reading the house of usher to my girlfriend. I fucking hate em dashes.

Something I want to research was how Engels dealt with his factories and his employees.

Back on the obsidian horse. Got all my lists of books I’ve read in one place. All my research notes. My fiction writing. My journaling. Anyone else using obsidian for a zettlekastin or at least a dumping ground so the brain knows it’s all in one place? I still have lots of folders of old notes from school and continuing educational material I want to put into my system. Would be cool to have an accountability buddy.

re-reading the iliad, i have come upon some passages which may be of interest for marxists (citations are dependent on the format of fitzgerald's own work):
<"Never have I had plunder like your own from any Trojan stronghold battered down by the Akhaians. I have seen more action hand to hand in those assaults than you have, but when the time for sharing comes, the greater share is always yours. Worn out with battle I carry off some trifle to my ships. Well, this time I make sail for home. Better to take now to my ships. Why linger, cheated of winnings, to make wealth for you?" [the iliad, fitzgerald translation, book 1, lines 128-190]
here, achilles complains that agamemnon exploits the labour of those who serve him.
there is this passage also:
<"your spirit's like an ax-edge whetted sharp that goes through timber, when a good shipwright hews out a beam: the tool triples his power" [the iliad, fitzgerald translation, book 3, lines 13-70]
alexandros directly communicates the notion of labour "power" to hector, milennia before marx adopts his own view from thomas hobbes, as he communicates:
<"One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England—Thomas Hobbes—has already, in his Leviathan, instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “The value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is, so much as would be given for the Use of his Power.’’ [value, price and profit, chapter 7]
its interesting in one respect, since hobbes later produced a translation of the iliad, and more relevantly, marx directly mentions homer as a figure of universality in the grundrisse:
<"is Achilles possible with powder and lead? Or the Iliad with the printing press, not to mention the printing machine? Do not the song and the saga and the muse necessarily come to an end with the printer’s bar, hence do not the necessary conditions of epic poetry vanish? But the difficulty lies not in understanding that the Greek arts and epic are bound up with certain forms of social development. The difficulty is that they still afford us artistic pleasure and that in a certain respect they count as a norm and as an unattainable model. A man cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish. But does he not find joy in the child’s naïvité, and must he himself not strive to reproduce its truth at a higher stage? Does not the true character of each epoch come alive in the nature of its children? Why should not the historic childhood of humanity, its most beautiful unfolding, as a stage never to return, exercise an eternal charm? There are unruly children and precocious children. Many of the old peoples belong in this category. The Greeks were normal children. The charm of their art for us is not in contradiction to the undeveloped stage of society on which it grew. [It] is its result, rather, and is inextricably bound up, rather, with the fact that the unripe social conditions under which it arose, and could alone arise, can never return." [grundrisse, introduction, part 3]
clearly, this "charm" of the iliad is resonant to marx, and contains its "eternal" truths, without maintaining its eternal conditions. each age has its own reason, yet all ages comprise the life of reason as a whole.