for "Stirner"
The "spirit of seriousness" possesses the objective man, the responsible man, the mature man.
This "possession" is just its "non-optionality" in the absence of a conscious alternative. Until one somehow learns to think otherwise, virtue just is serious and objective. Or rather such is the case for the "scientist of virtue." To be clear, "I" who speak here also play at this role, but in a late ironic stage of the role, in a self-subverting stage.
So the serious man to maintain his serious pose (which is to say to avoid understanding his seriousness as a pose) must interpret the ironist as a sick man or an evil man. The ironist, of course, is not offended --beyond as it were the "violence" of words. In this sense the ironist is the true materialist. If he shrugs at materialist ideologies, he knows better than most the gap between words and "reality." He fears actual not verbal violence as an interruption of his creative project. He assumes verbal violence as the background or womb from which his position emerged in the first place.
Born from merely verbal violence, his intellectual bones were sculpted by the teeth of the earnest ideologists. Let's be clear. Analyzing ideology is itself ideological. Marx is an ideologist. Zizek is an ideologist. Firebook is an ideologist. One man's ideal is the next man's ideology. But ol' Frank dives in. There's nothing outside ideology, only better or worse ideology, better or worse software. (Such are the numbers my own software spits.) . And it's not necessary that this better-worse be transpersonal. And it's not necessary that this non-necessity be transpersonal.
Ol' Frank like you-know-who has set his affair on nothing. That's Fichte as much as Stirner, though, not that either possesses an infinitesimal of authority beyond the theftworthiness of their software.
The "message" of the content is any kind of important, serious, objective, universal, moral position. The "medium" is the authority with which one is speaking, the role that has become so automatic as role as to be invisible.
Imagine a bird's eye view. The bird sees a man in a cornfield. There is only cornfield from a height of 20ft. So the world is a cornfield. But the cornfield isn't a cornfield. It's the world itself. The cornfield is only distinguishable as an object from a height of 50ft. At this new height the bird sees roads, a creek, and the original cornfield, which is no longer the world entire. Now the world is a trinity of roads, creek, cornfield.
To see the medium is to fly higher, zoom out. To assume the medium, to swim in it unthinkingly, is to know the world as cornfield. To zoom out is to reveal the apparently necessary as contingent. We just happened to see the cornfield and not the roads or the creek. That's what we happened to be flying over at an altitude that was itself contingent.
Ideological violence works against the medium, forcing the background to irrupt into the foreground, dissolving the bluff of necessity in the ideology it displaces or rather dissolves into itself.
When we apply this to notions of virtue, we can understand that this violence against the medium is painful. The philosopher mutilates himself first. "Authenticity" is a risky venture against the "they" of the medium or background. Abnormal discourse by definition is unjustified. If it succeeds, it borrows from but largely reinterprets the operant image of virtue = rationality. Note that virtue _is_ rationality in philosophy. That's the medium of philosophy. So philosophical revolutions are violence against this philosophical medium, which is to say violence against rationality itself in its current form. Rationality is self-determining. Abnormal discourse is creative philosophy is, if successful, a renormalization. One generation's suspect thinkers are the next generation's orthodoxy. _Fame_ is "magic." Awareness of the "they" (an orthodox thought) is not in itself a conquest or surpassing of the "they." On the other hand, a consciousness of this basic structure certainly helps the morale of the would-be strong poet.
https://www.reddit.com/user/frankfirebook/
This "possession" is just its "non-optionality" in the absence of a conscious alternative. Until one somehow learns to think otherwise, virtue just is serious and objective. Or rather such is the case for the "scientist of virtue." To be clear, "I" who speak here also play at this role, but in a late ironic stage of the role, in a self-subverting stage.
So the serious man to maintain his serious pose (which is to say to avoid understanding his seriousness as a pose) must interpret the ironist as a sick man or an evil man. The ironist, of course, is not offended --beyond as it were the "violence" of words. In this sense the ironist is the true materialist. If he shrugs at materialist ideologies, he knows better than most the gap between words and "reality." He fears actual not verbal violence as an interruption of his creative project. He assumes verbal violence as the background or womb from which his position emerged in the first place.
Born from merely verbal violence, his intellectual bones were sculpted by the teeth of the earnest ideologists. Let's be clear. Analyzing ideology is itself ideological. Marx is an ideologist. Zizek is an ideologist. Firebook is an ideologist. One man's ideal is the next man's ideology. But ol' Frank dives in. There's nothing outside ideology, only better or worse ideology, better or worse software. (Such are the numbers my own software spits.) . And it's not necessary that this better-worse be transpersonal. And it's not necessary that this non-necessity be transpersonal.
Ol' Frank like you-know-who has set his affair on nothing. That's Fichte as much as Stirner, though, not that either possesses an infinitesimal of authority beyond the theftworthiness of their software.
The "message" of the content is any kind of important, serious, objective, universal, moral position. The "medium" is the authority with which one is speaking, the role that has become so automatic as role as to be invisible.
Imagine a bird's eye view. The bird sees a man in a cornfield. There is only cornfield from a height of 20ft. So the world is a cornfield. But the cornfield isn't a cornfield. It's the world itself. The cornfield is only distinguishable as an object from a height of 50ft. At this new height the bird sees roads, a creek, and the original cornfield, which is no longer the world entire. Now the world is a trinity of roads, creek, cornfield.
To see the medium is to fly higher, zoom out. To assume the medium, to swim in it unthinkingly, is to know the world as cornfield. To zoom out is to reveal the apparently necessary as contingent. We just happened to see the cornfield and not the roads or the creek. That's what we happened to be flying over at an altitude that was itself contingent.
Ideological violence works against the medium, forcing the background to irrupt into the foreground, dissolving the bluff of necessity in the ideology it displaces or rather dissolves into itself.
When we apply this to notions of virtue, we can understand that this violence against the medium is painful. The philosopher mutilates himself first. "Authenticity" is a risky venture against the "they" of the medium or background. Abnormal discourse by definition is unjustified. If it succeeds, it borrows from but largely reinterprets the operant image of virtue = rationality. Note that virtue _is_ rationality in philosophy. That's the medium of philosophy. So philosophical revolutions are violence against this philosophical medium, which is to say violence against rationality itself in its current form. Rationality is self-determining. Abnormal discourse is creative philosophy is, if successful, a renormalization. One generation's suspect thinkers are the next generation's orthodoxy. _Fame_ is "magic." Awareness of the "they" (an orthodox thought) is not in itself a conquest or surpassing of the "they." On the other hand, a consciousness of this basic structure certainly helps the morale of the would-be strong poet.
https://www.reddit.com/user/frankfirebook/
Comments
Post a Comment