Because @StreetlightX is just never going to convince those affiliates of those Communization theorists to let me put our dispute aside, even if he cared to, I have created a political movement so that I can become a-political.

meta-
/ˌmetə,ˌmetə/
combining form
prefix: meta-; prefix: met-
1.
denoting a change of position or condition.
"metamorphosis"
2.
denoting position behind, after, or beyond.
"metacarpus"
3.
denoting something of a higher or second-order kind.
"metalanguage"

As "post" was already taken, I had to settle for "meta". That is all.

Hey, no problem!

I don't know. Was Kierkegaard an Existentialist? Does it really matter?

Not really. You send a message out there and it somehow reaches its recipient. Some people call it serendipity.

I should also note that I have merely posted to safeguard my position within a political foray that I would prefer to leave behind and that, should anyone want to take up this torch, they may have to go it alone, as I may just carry on with having become more or less a-political. If we don't see each other, give them all my best regards!

This website seems very post-structuralist to me, and, so I am so inclined to disagree.

Lacan was a post-structuralist in the sense that his psychological philosophy proceeded after structuralism, but not in the sense that he had moved beyond it. This is kind of an aside, but such interpretations have left me incapable of describing my political philosophy, which is Post-Anarchism, by which I do mean that I am glad to have moved beyond Anarchism.

To respond to the original post by @besserlernen, this article may help to clarify matters or further perplex them. I couldn't say too much either way, myself.

Are we going to get to talk about The Man Who Sold the World in this thread or not?

I'll understand if no one is interested in doing so, but, in passing conversation, I have previously been known to have been willing to invoke "Glam eschatology".

Eventually, people who have consigned themselves to evil grow old and try to amend what plights they have wrought, which is all well and good and can restore a certain degree of faith in humanity, but, in the grand scheme of things is often too little to late.

Your crypto-Fascist spy within the Metal scene grows tired of the drug trade and his long black beard begins to show a touch of grey. He uses his place in the sun to keep his many wolves at bay. Some of them know of how he got there, though, and their long black beards grow before they come to do the same.

I use it fairly sporadically, but will say that it was better when Wallows and Terrapin Station were still here. Having contributed to its decline, I will say that it will just get better now, more or less necessarily.

@tim wood, mistakenly operating under the assumption that I expect for him to alter the social ecology of Liberal academia to my liking, when all that I have done is to have prevented /lit/ from stacking an imaginary pile of books under his motorcycle, is just commenting on my meta-commentary.

As I've already bought my trip without a ticket, I have no reason to continue to do so.

Being said, the purloined letter is a message that always reaches its destination. Lacan was making an attempt to explain how the phenomenon of that people send various signals out in the world which do reach their intended receiver happens. I've never understood or even read him, and, so, couldn't say too much either way about what he thought. He can be considered to have been a post-structuralist, though.

My mistake, then. I am just saying that I don't know enough about the Labour Party to make good conversation about it. I also don't happen to live in the U.K..

For some reason, though, you seem to have taken that acknowledgment of mine as a tacit support for the Fabians, among others, which is not the case. You have forgotten that within this very thread I made a number of posts defending Jeremy Corbyn.

Anyways, feel free to carry on. Like I said, I just don't know anything about the internal politics of the Labour Party.

@StreetlightX probably knows some of the intellectuals whom I have been trying to put aside a certain dispute with. I have taken it upon myself to explain my situation so as to facilitate that happening. You seem to have taken my doing this for that The Philosophy Forum can somehow generate extraordinary historical events and sweeping changes in public policy.

I have not said that. I have said that I would be more inclined to support someone like Jeremy Corbyn, whom I previously defended against statements that you had made in this very thread.

I think that you think that what people say on The Philosophy Forum has more of an effect in the so-called "real world", as if the internet was somehow not a part of reality, than it actually does. Though anything that anyone says anywhere online can have effects, perhaps, within specific contexts and specific situations, The Philosophy Forum particularly so, generally what is stated here is fairly marginal.

Take your thread on your proposed plan for peace in Western Asia, for instance. If you want to bring peace to the region, what you should do is to look into what kinds of work human rights and nongovernmental organizations are already doing and volunteer. Attempting to start such a grandiose movement of "philosopher kings" on The Philosophy Forum is, at best, rather fanciful.

If you just want to chat it up about the Labour Party here, I would just hope that someone else comments in this thread or another one of yours, as, as I have a fairly limited knowledge of the internal politics of it, I just don't have very much to say.

I agree with your opposition to the Fabians to some extent, but, as I just don't live in the United Kingdom, I don't understand why you think you ought to convince me to do something about this. I am not a citizen of the U.K. and, therefore, not a member of the Labour Party. You should be having this conversation from a table outside of a pub somewhere in London handing out pamphlets for whoever the opposition to the Fabians are within the Labour Party. I can do nothing to help you from where I stand in the United States and, as I am an Anarcho-Pacifist, would do very little to, as I would probably merely vote for the Labour Party and not be an active member of it, were I to live in the United Kingdom.

As to whether I have Kierkegaard right, I don't know, but I took his position that Abraham showed the perfect faith in God when he unquestionably agreed to sacrifice his son without objection. My point was that he didn't show faith as we understand it in a contemporary sense because Abraham had no reason to question God. — Hanover

You have misunderstood Kierkegaard. In Fear and Trembling, he states that Abraham could only act upon "the strength of the absurd" and that it would be impossible to understand a person who has made the "movement of faith". God promised Abraham a son which he was given, Isaac. It was through Isaac that the progeny that was promised to Abraham was to come. God then demanded that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. There was no possibility of Abraham rationally believing that God would fulfill his promise. He could only act "upon the strength of the absurd". The story ought not to be interpreted as a moral fable about devotion as it commonly is within a Christian context; it is a way of calling to light what faith is like. People take it that Abraham must have had blind faith when that was precisely what he was denied.

I've always considered for the Fabians to be well-meaning Socialists who have occasionally made mistakes in terms of public policy, such as their support of Eugenics, because of their Victorian elite mentality, of which a parallel could be drawn towards Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth. Though they have changed over the years, I doubt that my assessment of them would differ too much today. Someone somewhere down the line came up with the phrase "the open conspiracy", which, I think, you have become somewhat fixated upon. It doesn't seem to be the case that there is a form of conspiratorial control over the Labour movement on the part of the Fabians. They just became somewhat popular in it. As I have already defended him in this thread, I would be moreso inclined to support someone like Jeremy Corbyn. I don't live in the United Kingdom, though.

Lyndon B. Johnson coined the "Great Society" to describe the Democratic Party's efforts to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in the 1960s. Even though I disagree with Johnson's foreign policy and do not think that their domestic policies were effective, it would be absurd for me to claim that the "Great Society" was some form of progressive industrialist conspiracy.

As it concerns actual political conspiracies, I have already issued a lengthy response revoking them.

Personally, I'm of the John Cale theory when it comes a Theory of Everything about the Art world. The "Neo-Fascist spies" are the people whom you would never suspect, those engaged in the appraisal and fixing of prices of selected works.

Though a symptom of the poverty of Western culture, I do not think that you are correct to suggest that idolization is the primary plight. Jean-Luc Ponty, for instance, had adopted the quasi-new age mein of a European socialite that many within the music industry complain is the source of all of their plights. When I think about Ponty's life and work, it seems unlikely to me that it did any relevant harm. The situation is more of what has been identified in The Cybernetic Hypothesis, a text that was a partial reason for my leaving the Anarchist movement, as, upon identifying the source of our plights within our respective socio-political, intellectual, and cultural environments, they advanced a return to the "Years of Lead" by the rather spurious invocation of the "diffuse guerilla". Though their concept was moreso concerning Politics, I think that the idea that there exist aesthetic regimens, a term that I have created to describe order-enforcing bodies, who attempt to arbitrate culture so that it develops in such a manner that cultivates the accumulation of social capital for its members can be meaningfully applied to the field of Art.

That people become egomaniacs is because of that aesthetics are culturally enforced. It's kind of a botched form of détournement. The Who, I think, is a good example of this. What created the problem was not that The Who were likely to do things like destroy hotel rooms or set a world record for the volume of their speakers at their concerts; they merely only so adequately responded to the plight created by that the music industry establishment had come to celebrate the forms of wealth and class that it had accumulated. The theatrical purpose of the excess of Rock and Roll was to wage a personal riot on account of that the establishment of the music industry had taken their various forms of popular manipulation too far. The Who even commented on the actual riots that were started because of that the press had generated the mythic "mods" and "rockers" in an attempt to use such quote unquote countercultures in order to sell records in Quadrophenia.

All of which is to say nothing of decadence. Though, I, too, think we should assess that it can be negative, I wouldn't say that it necessarily is so. Joanna Newsom's art is decadent, but I think that it is both good and does no damage to society. Contrary to most "high art", I would even say that it has elevated the status of Folk music to a certain extent, and, so, has actually had a fairly positive effect.

You didn't have to defend me, as, though "w/e" does just translate to "whatever" in 1337 speak, I was kind of implying that baker only thinks that because she is a woman.

Feminists who spend too much time around intelligent, but chauvinist men usually come to the same conclusions and are often unwilling to listen to the good advice that they should just find some other sets of society to participate in. Thus, "w/e".

Though well-meaning, I was ultimately making kind of essentialist statement of which there was no reason to defend.

An explanation:

It surprises me that Baker has encountered this in religious and spiritual circles as I am more familiar with it in intellectual and cultural ones. To put this in fairly binary terms, women often think that they should contend with chauvinist men so as to secure their place in the world. As such men, being chauvinists, don't tend to listen to women, what that invariably do is to put someone else up to doing this for them. As I am sympathetic towards them and fairly keen on such things, who this invariably ends up being are people like me. Their doing so engages us within the very disputes that we set out to avoid. When we explain this to them, they will, in return, claim that we just think that they should join us when we act just like them, but tend not to be terribly successful. As explaining to them that we only act like them because we end up involved within the very disputes that we set out to avoid and are only, in part, lacking in success, and I do mean within a person's life and career, because of that they continue to perpetuate this idea that pretending to be a chauvinist can somehow facilitate the success of the Feminist movement is only likely to make them further vexed at us, I have come to just make snide remarks.

All of which is to say that us wastefully expending all of our social capital so as to contend their position within the sets of society in which they should like to succeed is never going to bring about substantial change and that they would be much better off either just creating the kind of world in which they would like to live on their own or, at the very least, just letting us do so.

Being said, this is Baker's thread about Buddhist epistemology and she has only put forth a retort because of that I had mistaken her for a man in the first place. For all that there is to say of theological rigor, I still contend that carrying oneself as arrogant or self-righteous, even as a woman, which I do better understand, is just generally not good advice. My theories about all of this just aren't terribly relevant, though.

Fair enough, but being let to cultivate a person's way of life is what the Faustian bargain is made for. Highway 61 intersects Highway 66. I'm fairly confused by the rest of your original post.

It's probably my mistake. I just wanted to have a conversation about The Man Who Sold the World.

Probably not terribly favorably, but I only have your analysis to go on.

I haven't advocated Fabiainism. I have just said that I don't know anything about it.

I think that there's a certain truth to what you glean at of the so-called "hippies". The traded the marches and songs of the Civil Rights Movement for Happenings and Psychedelia, thereby effectively creating the various classes that exist within Pop Culture today. Though I like Happenings and Psychedelia, as well as every form of free expression, there's a way of interpreting political events following a series of events in 1968 as having resulted in the form of political suicide that is to engage in political terrorism. It's just a way of interpreting them, though.

If anyone actually plans on engaging in an actual conversation about this, I feel like this article could, perhaps, be somehow relevant.

With that being said, I should also like to quote Bob Dylan. "Keep a good head; always carry a lightbulb."

I see what you're saying about the Fabians, but previously just said "whatever" because of that we had gotten off-topic and just didn't feel like going on anymore. I don't really know anything about the Fabians, myself, though.

I don't know. It's all good, I guess.

W/e.

I would just like to point out for anyone who is unaware that I have not the words to express just how highly contentious and wildly unpopular the set of ideas I have just put forth are within the Anarchist movement. Almost everything that it does is designed for it never to let anyone come to the realization that said ideas are both completely reasonable and almost definitely within its best interest to, to some extent, agree with.

Anyways, I'll probably be taking off for a bit. I'll talk to anyone whenever.

What I wanted to do as a political activist was to garnish a certain degree of legitimacy by presenting Anarchism as a political philosophy, which I do think that it is, so that we could work together with environmentalists, left-wing Liberals, peace activists, and human rights advocates so as to both make the world a better place and ameliorate the general political ecology. Granted, I was not successful in this venture and didn't necessarily go about it very well. What I did not think was requisite for this to happen was a sacrifice of ideals, the total abandonment of direct action, at least, in so far that it was not coercive, or too much of a change in anyone's lifestyle. My ideas about this have never gone over well, though.

Even though I do agree to the definition of Anarchism as being a political philosophy that attempts to reify the "abolition of every form of hierarchy", I am willing to clarify that my interpretation of it is effectively libertarian socialism. I just generally think that society ought to be, first, as libertarian as possible, and, second, as it follows, as egalitarian as possible. I also happen to be a Pacifist.

It doesn't seem to me that Anarchism should be the sort of political cult that people throw their lives away in vain pursuit of, but does often become as such. All that I think that it ought to be is a generally agreeable good idea. It could be, I think, but will have to become as such without me, at least, for a while, perhaps indefinitely.

I get lost in my own mind quite often and can often find myself incapable of disintering between what is perceptive and what is apophenic mania. I get better with it all of the time, though. I should, perhaps, read up on some Zen. I'm always saying that I'm going to.

You can elaborate upon Anarchism if you like. I'll probably be trailing off of this forum in general from here on out so as to engage in my creative pursuits. I may chat it up from time to time, though.

So that my carrying on like this doesn't go on forever, in summation:

"The Final Day" by Galaxie 500

Currently, I feel so inclined to say Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Only Revolutions, but my actual three favorite books are Anna Karenina, The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Speak, Memory.

I wouldn't let anyone know this, but I am kind of a closet Led Zeppelin fan.

Posting this here for posterity. ☮︎!

I don't see how either genuine representative or participatory democracy are akin to either of those things, but, whatever.

Well, okay, I apologize for venting.

I don't see how my assumption that there ought to be a somewhat equitable access to education is somehow indicative of that I advance some form of extreme egalitarianism.

It's been over one-hundred years since the era of industrialization. I'm still just some down and out Catholic school kid from a working class neighborhood who never can seem to get past kind of a lot of wealthy and abusive middle-aged men. As much as I don't harbor any animosity towards people with wealth or the lucky few who are let to become successful within academia, classism just isn't charming and mentalism really is a form of prejudice.

They don't like anyone with a fair amount of intelligence and common sense. They never have and never will. They're right not to. What often happens is that people like me get everyone else to understand that they're just kind of using them, as, if we don't, we will be marginalized and isolated from society. On some level, they're right to claim that we're just trying to remove them from their positions of authority. Clearly, we have good reason to. They could always just give up on their boarding school habits, though. There came a time in my life where I thought that I should consider as to why it is that Jason Pierce has developed the band, Spiritualized, and let go of what I thought about Spacemen 3. It takes half of them until around sixty-five to gain even the semblance of maturity, though.

This is just a personal gripe and nothing to anyone here, really. I can appreciate Classical music. I'm glad that there's a world outside of it, too, though.

A joke that I have added to this comment:

I grew up in an actual split-level house next to an actual sewer in an actual post-industrial working class neighborhood with a proverbial "other side of town" across the bridge and over the rain tracks that also happens to be kind of a mob retirement community and went to an actual Catholic school where there were actual informally organized boxing matches in the parking lot where we had our recess. It's a good thing that I am a Pacifist and don't have any friends because we otherwise probably would have started the American equivalent of the Provisional Irish Republican Army by now.

A closing remark:

As much as I, too, am a great fan of his work, I do kind of lament that the creative oeuvre of Wes Anderson has had the effect of, again, convincing the global populace that what isn't really, but people generally term "racketeering" is fun. I just want to be let to like Bottle Rocket again. Alas, though, I should stop going on like this, and, so, will give the original poster their thread back.

The socio-political ecology of Anarchism is terrible, but I will say that they do have things like not being guilty of humanitarian catastrophe going for them. Because a lot of Anarchists are young, I don't really like to say this, but Anarchism is a political philosophy and it kind of ought to understood as such. That does entail the cultivation of ways of life, but the way that Anarchists are of either their aesthetic or various forms of revelry is just terminally frustrating. Smashing a window one time only ought to add so much credibility to any person's ideas concerning the organization of society and they often don't really act too much different from certain jet set music fans when it comes to who is let to be welcome within the community. I really wanted to like Anarchism and I really found for it to have kind of destroyed my life. I could have done without another coterie clique and another set of people who treat either the appreciation of art or a set of political ideas as if they were in a mafia. Anarchists tend to express a certain degree of animosity towards "hipsters", but have no idea as to why. What's wrong with them is just the same kind of obscure pretense and the same kind of hypercompetitive conduct when it comes to any person's almost invariably wholly illusory social capital.

I think that you misunderstand.

Cultivating wisdom as such would result in the cultivation of cults of personality and the formation of intellectual classes. Those two things already pose certain predicaments for me. Why, when the fundamental qualms that I have with society already are not resolved, should I go for another way of organizing it?

If we are to take you and Plato at his and your word, in good faith, and interpret you well, within a political context, it would seem that the training of philosopher kings would result in a syncretic form of representative and participatory democracy. In the ideal sense, these "philosopher kings" are just open-minded Liberals and Anarchist political philosophers. Why even adopt such a moniker?

I'm just saying that Plato put forth that idea in opposition to the direct Athenian democracy and that it was, later, used to disrupt the Liberal democratic project. In some ideal sense, perhaps? I just think that, if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so.

I don't know. I think that it's superficially plausible. Aside from @Apollodorus's assumption that the removal of the third holiest site in Islam from Jerusalem could somehow ease religious tensions, were the United Nations to be capable of doing anything in these regards, that they and nongovernmental organizations should work together to bring peace to Western Asia does seem like a good idea.

There doesn't seem to be a place for me within them then, though I think that you might just have too negative of a depiction of them because of your own experience. Granted, I'm an atheist, anyways.

I suppose that, rather than give a rather recondite discursive analysis of the motivations behind The Anarchist Library's tacit support for Individualists Tending toward the Wild, making a rather pronounced jest by offering the pretense of engaging within a conversation about Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, pointing out that it seems rather doubtful that the author of the blog, The Charnel-House, has anything to do with my predicament, utilizing information by offering commentary on the phenomenon of "dual consciousness" in the former Soviet Union, or making any snide remarks in relation to Jean Baudrillard's interpretation of the Pop Culture phenomenon of the collective fixation upon what's "cool", I ought to just continue to explain my situation.

Though there was a certain Anarchist who may call to mind Tiqqun's Theory of Bloom whom I did both get into a dispute with and take said dispute too far, as we are on good terms now, I don't see why that should be a concern of anyone else's.

As an Anarcho-Pacifist, because Pacifism is wildly unpopular within the Anarchist movement, and peace the peace movement has a general aversion to collaborating with people who formerly almost attempted to create their own ideological sect, effectively an Anarchist equivalent of Communization, so as to remain politically engaged, I could only convince the Anarchist movement to be more welcoming. This, however, is just simply impossible, as, in order to do so, I would ultimately have to convince the Black Panther Party to revise the variant of the diversity of tactics that they adopted.

In the general course of my going about and doing things otherwise, I had also attempted to participate within the independent music industry and, though I do still play music, as I did formerly find myself within a dispute with kind of a clandestine party, which I have since put to rest, I do tend not to get on so well with kind of a lot of people in the scene, as the way things tend to go is that you're in when you're in and you're out when you're out, because of the many circumstances of my life, I am just kind of de facto "out".

What there, then, leaves for me to do is to study Philosophy. As certain Liberal academics can be so inclined to advance a kind of patrician Mentalism and others an effective deliberate indifference, and I am kind of an uncanny sort of person who lives within the place of schizophrenia of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, I often find that, by that they know all too well that I know all too well it is they who have cultivated an intellectual culture so as to marginalize and isolate people like me, though I do occasionally try to engage them in meaningful erudite conversation, they're often mostly interested and engaged in just kind of making a quite deliberate attempt to bar me from the university. Within the intersection of Philosophy and Law, there are some people who have been making an attempt to substantiate human rights, which I do think is a noble cause, but one that I would only disrupt, and some right-wing intellectuals who have kind of an unsettlingly favorable fascination with Carl Schmitt. Aside from all of them, there are left-wing intellectuals, who, in so far that they are only so taken by certain kinds of revelry on the part of the Anarchist community or a lot of rather high-flown philosophy on the part of the ultra-Left, I do get on with well, but those who are only so taken by it are all too few and far between. There is only one other party left, being Critical Theorists. What I'm trying to get across to a Critical Theorist is that, though I do have a habit of being fairly particular and elaborating at length, I don't really have too much of a reason to outside of my life at the university or my creative endeavors in so far that they wouldn't leave me as sort of an implicit focal point in the beaten way of political critique, especially since there is no reason to, as people only mistake that I am often to the point, perceptive, justified, and correct for some kind of sanctimony because of a general prejudice against Pacifists, and I would kind of prefer to engage within the realm of "pure theory" rather than make an attempt to commit myself to any form of political praxis. This idea that people have that I am of a rival school of thought which poses some sort of existential threat is not only completely unfounded, but also indicative of that their weltanschauung has failed not to succumb to some form of cult pathology or another.

Being said, social clubs can only ever be reflective of society and I'm ultimately just trying to generate a depiction of my person that is to my liking or, at the very least, to create a situation for myself where I just don't have to think about one at all.

Addenendum:

I'm just talking to myself as if I were talking to someone else now, but the only way that I can drop out is if the aforementioned Critical Theorists are willing to view me favorably enough so that I am let to do so, which I, in the general course of my life, am capable of bringing into effect, but that much of the internet seems to have an unwitting disfavorable depiction of my person does pose a certain predicament. I always leave places eventually and well when I can, but I'd often be able to leave them sooner if people would just accept that I very clearly understand what generally goes on and am often willing to take the many paths of least resistance. It's whatever, though.

I don't know. It's all good. I'm just kind of rambling.

Postscript:

I'm still just talking to myself as if there is an audience unto my own mind, but, I don't know how much you know about the service industry, but, being on the de facto outs is just the sort of thing that makes it kind of difficult to survive in it. Seeing that most other jobs are kind of temporary, it is kind of contingent upon the general course of my life to go to the university, and, so, though my going on like this is born in partial madness, there is a kind of reasoning behind it.

It's whatever, though. Now that I've explained this, I can kind of just carry on however. I feel pretty chill. All is well, y'know?

It's just this all of this has me, again, wondering, despite that I already have made what amends I either can or should, are all just somehow localized. Though, in good faith, I shouldn't like to make any digs or anything, what I've found of people operating under a certain degree of hubris is that it is often better just to get everyone else to figure out how to cope with whatever social predicament you see that can be circumnavigated than it is to even attempt to get anything through to them whatsoever. Seeing that we've gone kind of global, here, though, I feel like this is kind of absurd. Originally, I just kind of wanted to start a band, get only so into left-wing political philosophy, and land a job at a coffee shop. It's whatever, though, I guess. You've just gotta let the world become however it does.