...Don't Look Back.

Blegh, ignore that ish and carry on. I've finally buckled down and decided to leave the internet for good. Peace, all! Cya never.

Lyrically speaking, it's the best song written in over fifty years.

No shit. :mask: — 180 Proof

I should seek to end it, but worry that my pretense doesn't continue it further.

The point about my artistic expression, however, is that "The Long Goodbye" is better than almost all other songs. There's a few with Dylan to contend with, but I don't think it meets its match with either Pete Seeger or Phil Ochs. It'a one for the age, but, alas, will never be recognized as such, due to what I lack in vocality.

I've been trying to facilitate a generalized peace to no avail. They don't intend, y'know, but we can...

I happen to be the "teenage brother who smoldered" under that "Joy Division poster".

The 'song of storms":

"Joy Division " by Simon Joyner

Belgh...

They can always just use them to enforce whatever and it makes me terribly sad.

It's just idk, man. It's just a world that you ought not to learn. The white world is fucked, man. We can't do anything. That is all that I've got.

I've played it before and I'll play it again, the song that liberated me from neo-fascism:

"Teen Age Riot" by Sonic Youth

Oh, right, they ought to participate within that "feminist" project. Go fuck yourself, y'know. We are liberationists. We subscribe to full liberation.


We will not be fooled. It's about liberation for all, y'kow what I mean?

Here's another one:

"The Sprawl" by Sonic Youth

I mean, y'know, what "false consciousness: is and what false consciousness does...

It's not that the primary targets of misogyny are feminists who deviate from the social norm: it's that the primary targets of the sex trade are those who don't.

Okay, but "pretty, witty, and white". Where're we going?

What about "Box of Rain", though, can you really contend with "Box of Rain"?

We have the godsend and..., well, we have the godsend.

It doesn't exist, y'know. The "song of storms"...It just doesn't exist.

Yeah, man, a lonely hipster has just claimed his right over prostitution, that of it being safe, which, should you deny, you will find yourself in conflict with.

It's the first track. Don't fuck with us.

There exists not the "indie" bosh to follow that with. Let us proceed, however, with "The Ballad of El Goodo", with nothing else to proceed from.

I wrote this expressionist folk album:

Where I Have Found You Now

It's no good, as I can't sing, but it's kind of a bit deeper than almost all Folk musicians excluding Bob Dylan. I have kind of complex over not being able to sing, which plays into everything else. It's just what it is, though.

You follow it with songs, man, but where it leads to is here:

"The Universe!" by Do Make Say Think

Blegh. It's somewhat lost in Australia.

Here's low talk:

"When All Eyes Were On Us" by low talk

It just breaks my fucking heart that you don't think that "Song to the Siren" is the closer, though.

In lieu of my imaginary wife, I bring to The Philosophy Forum this cover by Galaxie 500:

"Don't Let Our Youth Go to Waste"

I don't just contemplate what good music is; I make the decisions to ensure its survival. Recently, I purchased a t-shirt on Etsy for the Factory single of New Order's "Ceremony". What I have to say of this is that you just don't want to be "hip" enough to wear it.

I will, though, and, in good time, we'll all be ready for whatever to come to an end. I have nothing else to say for now; only that there is hope for us still.

Having laid claim to my rightful territory, in memoriam of my former flights and fights:

"Sing Another Song Boys" by Leonard Cohen

In apologetic admittance of certain habits and a chauvinist display of my apparent superiority, I give you:

"I'll Keep It With Mine" by Fairport Convention

For love and solidarity:

"Song to the Siren" by Tim Buckley

"Does Not Suffice" by Joanna Newsom

"It's Alright" by Spacemen 3

"I'm So Depressed" by Abner Jay

Bad Girl" by Lee Moses

Also, the favored whipping post of critical theorists and Christian moralists alike, "romanticism". They have, again, outlawed what the best of Victoria novelists sought to liberate. Some things never change, y'know what I mean?

Also, "aesthetics". I must say that I am only revolted by conversations about the "aesthetics of violence" and, perhaps, even more, about those so-inclined to invoke what you might call an odd kind of "neo-classism". The inclusion of the "aesthetic" within discourse on biopolitics, though, perhaps, beginning as a veritable critique of symbolic power, now reminds me of the implicit closing line to Breathless, the injunction to vomit.

Contentious bid for "subjectivity", here. It's either the feigned ekstatic celebration of what is not, but is often called "différance", actually the rather veritable concept of what I recall Gilles Deleuze identifying as "differenciation", at least, according to the translator, in Difference and Repetition, in the eyes of French philosophers or or solipsistic idealism in those of English or American ones respectively. Empiricism just seems to necessarily entail subjectivity and no one ascribes to solipsistic idealism. It's just kind of Analytic philosophy in this regard.

Another one, though, is "justice". Cicero was rad as all hell to point out that justice was the only virtue via the "Sword of Damocles", an allegory that kind of a lot of people unfortunately don't get, but, justice seems to carry all of these connotations that have little to nothing to do with stilting the scales for good over evil in the world.

I focus on them too much as it is. It doesn't do anyone too good to be all that good to be combative.

Consider if that Nietzsche or Marx had only thought about the gifted eugenicist. Maybe things would've turned out a lot better?

I don't know. It was just a thought.

Perhaps, I mean, I don't want to stifle anyone's creativity, here.

When we think of philosophy as historically tied to the advisory of sovereignty, though, and have many examples of its abuse, should we not feel a certain gravitas and assume, perhaps not in a way that considers this or that philosopher as all that culpable, a certain degree of responsibility? Ought we not to, as philosophy is to cultivate a way of life in some regards, consider the effect it will have on the world?

...and they were misinterpreted to justify aristocracy, Marxism-Leninism, and Nazism.

The point of the experiment is to see if there is social risk to any given philosophy.

Right, I'm not saying that Nussbaum would will my reducto ad absurdum. By that it is a reducto ad absurdum, it is intended to show that a potential consequence of her theory is antithetical to its mission. It's not an ad hominem. I'm not saying that she's a eugenicist. I'm saying that her theory can be used to justify the opposite of what she wants for it to.

I dont see this as a good objection to a theory. You can twist a lot of innocent theories to your menovelant means, not just social Darwinism. That's just a testament to human creativity. — Wheatley

Perhaps, but Plato, Nietzsche, and Marx, I think, are evidence of the potential misuse of philosophy.


Right, her idea is to bring everyone within bios, but I think that the very division of life as such is what allows for the exclusion of whomever from the political sphere. It's all in Homo Sacer.

We agree that reducing suffering in relation to babies being born through slight genetic manipulations. And you've said that that's not social Darwinism. OK. — Manuel

Well, it is not. Social darwinism is inextricably tied to scientific racism, classism, prejudice against the "insane", etc.

We're having a conversation as if by "national socialism" you think that I mean something other than Nazism. Sure, theoretically, you could have a nationalist and socialist state and it may not be all that bad, but what that is isn't national socialism. We occasionally call that "European socialism", "social democracy", or "evolutionary" or "reformist" socialism. Maybe it oughta have its own name, but what it just isn't is "national socialism".

By that a "spade" is "just a spade", I mean that what I have said about the eugenics debate is just what has happened and that what I have said that it is just is what it is. There's nothing for you to infer. That's just what I'm telling you has happened.

Sure, but it's still not relevant to this idea.

Nussbaum accepts Aristotle's division of zoe, what Giorgio Agamben claims became "bare life" to some cogency, but we can be favorable to Aristotle in describing as "domestic" life, and bios, or "politically qualified" life. Her capabilities approach is designed to cultivate eudaemonia, which she does just refer to as "happiness", and what capacity people have to participate within the political sphere in a highly inclusive manner. I intended to show that her theory could be used for the opposite purpose of only contributing to the quality of life of those already included within the political sphere, particularly those of status within it, via the potential interpretation of only further cultivating what capacities people already have.

I never wrote this research paper, though, as he shot me down about that idea.

The way in which he did, though, was invoke "gifted eugenicist", which I thought made for an interesting thought experiment for determining the social risk of philosophical ideas.

Right, but the idea is to test theories that you wouldn't usually associate with, or in relatively close proximity to, social darwinism.

Say, the philosophy of Gaston Bachelard, for instance. If the philosophy of Gaston Bachelard can be used to support social darwinism, then, we can't assume for it be without social risk.

That sounds interesting, but both of us had accepted as given that social darwinism is bosh. He was just rejecting my reducto ad absurdum of Nussbaum. The way he put it led me to come up with this thought experiment.