Ce coperta misogina are Dilema. O poza de coperta care afirma idealul feminin impus de secolele de patriarhat nenorocit. P coperta cu o poza misogina alături de un titlu al cărui subtext este si el misogin.
Any decent engineer will have had at least once the experience of being “managed” into submission. Why? Because for the people at the top your amazing intellect does not offer any right – it’s a cost.
A deal you take or pass. There is no technocracy. There is oligarchy with engineering puppets. Poor smart people. Always the tools of the rich. Ever since true knowledge ceased to be power practical intelligence became the gigolo and whore of emotional intelligence. And no one is better at emotional intelligence than those which have no emotions – our ruling psychopaths.
Have you noticed how we were taught from infancy that the smart people can’t communicate? It’s such a concerted effort. Crazy scientist. Why did Einstein had to have that hair style, beats me. But it sure reinforces the stereotype.
There is no technocracy possible simply because the medium of technology is still social and anthropogenic. Tech would rule on robots. Humans with limited lifespans and hunger guiding immediate thoughts are worst candidates for technocratic rule. Plus the psychopaths.
Reading obscure message boards I feel like an NPC peeking at the chat rooms of the players. The vastness of games available, the adventures that higher level players get, the areas of the world they can enter. NPC life is all about consequences and planned obsolescence.
All modern creation is removed from humanity on purpose.
All modern and post modern expression is needlessly opaque and complicated. From art to science, from public speaking to fashion, it’s all shrouded in layers of needless mental appendages that obscure and mesmerise.
The goal of the obscurity is so that the lay people give up on self expression. If self expression requires decades of training then 99% of people won’t do it. In the absence of self expression people will just adopt a pre made identity that fits them best. In this way the masses are constantly leaderless and in a continuous identity war.
The makers of this situation should be ashamed of existing into such sleazy, manipulative and gross instances of being-ness.
Modern culture is shit because human societies have gone through the same process which forests and other natural ecosystems had gone through – replacement of diversity with clones and engineered species.
Premodern culture – all of it, from prehistoric times to right before the enlightenment – is human at the core, but extremely varied and specific to localized groups which internalized their own specific history and narrative arc.
Modern humans still live in groups, like their ancestors, and because they feel the need to, but these groups are fabricated as a sort of fake hologram of what a group should be. The differences that matter between humans are going away and culture is the part where this is first visible.
Not even generations have demarcation lines anymore. The young waste away in different corners of the internet doing exactly what the old do. Using a different platform does not make you avant-garde or a rebel.
Modern humans, just like the aligned trees in a human made “green wall” – a simulacrum of a forest – all come from one favored species – ethically and socially speaking. It’s not wether superhero movies are actually movies – it’s about that between superhero movies made with big budget Hollywood teams and small European aimed at film award festivals films there is little difference in terms of expressivity, assumptions, lived reality, and general cultural background.
Even the powers at war now have little that they differ on. The differences are made up fodder for propaganda. In truth the war is fought using the same set of emojis.
I sometimes feel that with “status” comes the permission to weave phrases and the patience reading them requires. If people think you’re having enough authority, they’ll have more patience for you to explain.
For everyone else, we require a sort of grunt writing style. Arguments like “people don’t have time”, “conclusion first”, short sentences, shorter sentences!, be concise and so on, are all super common.
What would we want more? Clarity or simplicity?
I agree that shortform and on topic clarity is a huge helper, but I feel there are countless more times where not treating things like fleeting feed items gives one’s brain the chance to be bright.
“You’ve disgraced this country in the eyes of the world, and my inclination is to lock you up,” Judge Reggie B. Walton said to defendant Anthony Mariotto – CNN says.
The level of hypocrisy is comical. Does that judge think that is USA’s problem in the eyes of the world?
How about ruining countless democracies and replacing them with military coups? How about stripping resources of countries to the bone and then leaving? How about abducting people and keeping them locked up in illegal facilities? How about embargoes? How about inventing wars?
I cannot believe the depth of disillusion some people are willing to dive into. How about you stop treating “institutions of democracy” as holy sites? When I was reading the judge’s cry for replacing the will of the people with the will of the mob I laughed out loud.
Who is he talking to? Which will of the people? The one lobbied out of existence? The one ignored for decades? The one fabricated through the media consent manufacturing? The broken will of the people that wins elections? The aspirational will of the people cast aside by elites?
If judges in the USA believe that the image problem of the USA is the capitol riots that is a problem that, again, affects all subjects of the US Empire we all live in.
Daca renunți la a doua persoana in mintea ta s-ar putea ca multe din idei sa fie fracturate. Este nevoie de alter ego pentru ca egoul sa poate avea un dialog. Monologul individual, desi mai liniștit, este mai limitat si mai evident in retrospectiva. Limitarea aceasta este artificiala fiindca oricând emiți ceva, astepti un raspuns. Ca fiinte rationale funcționam pe baza de feedback, asadar si gândurile noastre cele mai intime au nevoie de feedback pentru a fi validate.
A doua persoana are numeroase dezavantaje. Primul este întărirea credințelor si mentalităților dincolo de rațiune. Prin acest ping pong continuu consistenta identității noastre este zidita medieval: un mortar de ganduri ce dăinuie zeci de generații. Al doilea, sunt cele 100 de fete schimbatoare ale egoului. In dialogul interior nu stai niciodata de vorba cu aceeasi „persoana”. Egoul ia forma emotiei dominante, iar asta face ca nuanta adevarului sa varieze drastic de la o stare a consiintei la alta. Astfel este foarte dificil pentru cautator sa gaseasca drumul drept atunci cand un sfat, de altfel bun, vine cu mistuirea mandriei sau cu dezorientarea fricii.
Insa a doua persoana are si numeroase avantaje. Unul dintre ele este capacitatea de auto reflexie. Putem in felul acesta, prin a ne adresa noua înșine cu tu, sa invatam constant din greseli. Daca noua insine nu ne-am vorbi la persoana a doua atunci am fi in mod constant precum jocul acela cu omida care manca patratele si se tot lungea pana cand in final se lovea de ea insasi. Avem nevoie de posibilitatea de a ne detaja coada experientei de sine ca sa o vedem pe toata lungimea sa. Apoi, aceasa a doua persoana este si muza ce ne inspira. Avem nevoie de o voce care sa ne dicteze ce sa gândim. De gandit gândim singuri, insa tot e mai limpede si mai creativ atunci cand cuprinși de focul creației ne reducem la o simpla unealta a inspirației divine.
Totusi ar fi interesant de petrecut o vreme fara persoana a doua, omulețul imaginar sa moara de singurătate, nebăgat in seama. Sa te adresezi mereu cu eu propriei persoane. Sa ai răbdarea de a trage cu cleștele voinței gândurile spre a le vedea forma si adevăratul sens. Sa fii cu adevarat singur atunci cand esti singur.
Read more
