no rush, or worries

Some historical curiosity:

I've been reading Pierre Klossowski's Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle for a few years now. A few years because: whenever I read a chapter, everything seems really significant and right, in some hard-to-define-sense, but I can't quite place it. I know it's right, but I can't say why. I step away and think on it (or forget it consciously and let it steep)

Then I come back a few months later and I 'get it' in the sense that I both understand what drew me in and also grasp the nuts and bolts. Which lets me get to the next chapter --- rinse, repeat. I've been with it for a while, and never cease to get something new when I come back.

Anyway, onto the actual historical curiosity.

The book is dedicated to Deleuze. There was some sort of friendship. Continuing: Klossowski's mom was the last lover of Rilke. Rilke had many lovers. One of them is Lou Salome. Lou Salome, of course, is most famous for her role as a non-lover to someone who would have preferred that things were different.

How would you relate Deleuze's co-opting of the Nietzschean 'throw-of-the-dice' (with the sky/earth-table distinction) to this? It seems to map broadly to it, but the 'throw of the dice' itself could potentially add a few new elements, I say tentatively. Curious to hear your take

second @prothero - really clear & concise explanation.

Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst. If they were planning to lose the election by alienating as many supporters as possible, they couldn't have done a better job. And yet not voting Dem is still understandably a very difficult step for many progressives to take. Absolute shit show. Of course, the Dem leadership will just sleepwalk into the election pretending everything's fine like they did with Hillary. — Baden

Yes, I'm in agreement here. In my heart of hearts, I am happy with things being forced to their crisis. In my conscience of consciences, I feel like I'm able to feel that in my heart of hearts only because I've never been all that happy or successful in the old status quo, and I feel uncomfortable following my gut-feeling here. I think the the question of whether to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' in this particular election is partially a referendum on whether that way of thinking even makes sense anymore, on its own terms, even if you've always disagreed with it on principle. I do think the answer is that doesn't, and I think I barged into this thread not having seen the types of posts @StreetlightX was responding to, which are frustrating (sorry @Frank Apisa, I can't buy what you're selling). I do still object to the transposition of manichaean-framing-in-outrageous-terms from one level to another. I'm not saying we should suppress anger, I think anger is often good and useful, but there's a kind of trench-warfare bitterness and frothing that hurts everyone involved, to no good purpose.

[end of poem]

Taking a path you never saw before
Thought you knew the area
(The many perceive they fight off sleep).
"A few gaffers stay on
To the end of the line
Tho that is between bookends."
The note is struck finally
With just sufficient force but like a thunderbolt
As only the loudest can be imagined.
And they stay on to talk it over.

@frank@javra I've been thinking recently about the emergence of the ego as a sort of darwinian natural selection for : certain self-narratives, allowed emotions, means of expressing them, memories retained and so forth. At decisive moments in the development of the ego (crises, epiphanies, moments of resolve etc) certain things would be selected and strengthened. The soul would still contain everything that isn't selected. The ego's development would be both a progressive 'forgetting' and a creation of new capacities and ways to navigate the world.

So the ego develops, but after a while becomes limiting (evolved for old circumstances that no longer hold) and the only way forward is to 'remember' by making contact with the soul (for instance, how meditating will sometimes shake loose or let bubble up totally forgotten memories that tow with them whole lost worlds)

Or such is the idea, anyway.

In a way reminds me of the Golden Compass. Haven’t read the book but I liked the movie. It's why I mention it.

How do you feel about the Latin concept of anima as soul – in contrast to the animus as mind? The anima, to my understanding, is at least in part that which causes one to be endowed with breath, quite literally. It’s there even when you’re in dream-devoid sleep and hold no consciousness. Whereas animus, mind, tmk is at least in part that which deals with conflicts at a conscious level, as in conflicting ideas and drives that one as consciousness has to contend with.

Then again, there’s the Buddhist stance of no such thing as a permanent self, the stance of no-soul, as it’s sometimes translated. Still, in fairness to the Buddhist platform, here there’s still something of semi-permanence that persists lifetime to lifetime. I take it this up to the time Nirvana is obtained. — javra

I devoured those books as a kid, and the daemon idea is, I agree, very much along these lines. I don't know very much about anima, but everything you've said feels very much aligned with the (admittedly only vaguely thought out) idea of a soul I'm interested in.

That the soul isn't equivalent to consciousness (or mind) especially seems important - there are constantly changes being wrought in us that we only become 'aware' of, after the fact. The process of becoming 'aware' of something some part of us already 'knows' (but 'know ' seems wrong, that part of us already 'is'?) is the source of dreams, spiritual growth, emotional maturation, 'epiphanies', artistic creation and so forth.

I think you could potentially square this with the buddhist 'no-soul' (I'm not sure, I know only the very basics of Buddhism) by seeing the soul less as a fixed thing (as the parameters of thought often our in our 'minds' if we've grown sclerotic) than a kind of ephemeral unfolding its own right - ephemeral, but with continuity

The weather kept them at their small tasks:
Sorting out the news, mending this and that.
The great poker face impinged on them. And rejoiced
To be a living reproach to
Something new they've got.
Skeeter collecting info: "Did you know
About the Mugwump of the Final Hour?"
Their even flesh tone
A sign of "Day off,"
The buses moving along quite quickly on the nearby island
Also registered, as per his plan.

They had moved out here from Boston
Those two. (The one, a fair sample
Of the fair-sheaved many,
The other boggling into single oddness
Plays at it when he must
Not getting better or younger.)

The many as noticed by the one:
The noticed one, confusing itself with the many
Yet perceives itself as an individual
Traveling between two fixed points.
Such glance as dares dart out
To pin you in your afternoon lair is only a reflex,
A speech in a play consisting entirely of stage directions
Because there happened to be a hole for it there.
Unfortunately, fewer than one half of one per cent
Recognized the divined gesture as currency
(Which it is, albeit inflated)
And the glance comes to rest on top of a steeple
With about as much interest as a bird's

New Poem : De Imagine Mundi

Given it some thought. Neither the sonderkommando nor the katechon are quite the right images. Better are the collaborationist vichy, who, no doubt, argued with perfect rationality that France would be better governed by the French than the Germans, even as they helped the latter send their own citizens to the camps. Flawless arithmetic. "Yes the vichy are terrible, but...". Of course now we cheer when either the SS or the vichy are hung from the rafters in our historical reconstructions, even as the latter protested their supposed differences from the invaders. Mm. Much better. — StreetlightX

If Biden is elected and starts gassing people, my qualified support of the court argument will look silly, I grant that. I will even send you a $100 amazon gift card as penance.

Let me fix that. I've been listening to the live oral arguments recently and probably most of those cases haven't been decided on yet. Among those are a case about native american rights, one about religious freedom to discriminate in hiring, and one on religious freedom to not provide birth control thru employer health insurance. My point is only that the 'court argument' for voting for Biden isn't total bs. The reason for saying that is in part a self-correction because I was ripshit when Biden became the clear nom, and angrily declared never to vote for him. I still won't but I've come to think its more nuanced a question if you've something at stake.

Borges did a really great treatment of this

I like the idea - I don't know where it originates, but it crops up here and there - of the soul as something you have a relationship with. It's like something you take care of, but which, in its turn, inspires and aids you. The soul is also you, or part of you, but you're also something in addition which tends to it. Not a philosophical definition, but I think its a nice one.

[end of poem]

That time faded too and the night
Softened to smooth spirals or foliage at night.
There were sleeping cabins near by, bind lanterns,
Nocturnal friendliness of the plate of milk left for the fairies
Who otherwise might be less well disposed:
Friendship of white sheets patched with milk.
And always an open darkness in which one name
Cries over and over again: Ariane! Ariane!
Was it for this you led your sisters back from sleep
And now he of the blue beard has outmaneuvered you?
But for the best perhaps: let
Those sisters slink into the sapphire
Hair that is mounting day.
There are still other made-up countries
Where we can hide forever,
Wasted with eternal desire and sadness,
Sucking the sherberts, crooning the tunes, naming the names.

street.....
ok, gnight

I don't think it's straightforward and that has been my point. what's straightforward is this isn't straightforward. And people aren't equivalent to jews killing other jews when they think on it. of course.

Basically all I'm saying is, for people for whom particular things matter, its sometimes necessary to take into account nomination of judges. And, when that comes in conflict with the presidential election, thats a hard thing. If saying that lets loose a river of violent anger - idk man. A slurry of profanity, as Zizek teaches us, usually indexes a weakness of thought, or whatever else.

It's a pretty straightforward thing - why are you getting so angry?

No one's talking about whether the state will save anyone! Save. No, the state won't save anyone. If the person who says the state will save everyone is your true interlocutor, then let me sidestep.

I brought up personal stakes in the sense that it's helpful to think of concrete effects on people when appraising how they vote. People aren't lining up for the chance to vote for racist cunts, as you put it. sometimes there's a logic to how they vote that isn't based on deep racist evil. It could be salutary for them to dose themselves with australian idealism, but theyre too dumb not to, alas. Presidents nominate judges, I don't know how else to say it.

I think we all can agree Joe Biden is morally compromised, to put it lightly. His character is in tatters, the flag is drooping. Yes, yes, I agree. As I said, we're on the same page and my vote will likely align with what you're saying.

I'm not talking about voting for a pure man versus an impure man. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone with a real issue that will be voted on. That affects them. How do they vote? Street, I don't care about winning points, listen - how do they vote, and why? I mean something central : Again, look at the last ten SCOTUS cases. You talk like someone who's never had to make a hard choice. I can agree with you all day not to vote for Biden. We have that luxury.

Do I get skin-in-the-game points if I mention that I've got a Chinese background? What should it even fucking matter? A racist cunt-bag is a racist cunt-bag is a Biden

What does being an australian with a chinese background have to do with US elections - do we mean the same thing by 'skin-in-the-game'? The world isn't a moral parchesi game, guy. If you're mad, and find yourself spontanteously rilling out 'cunts,' justifying it because youre part chinese (?) then own that and do that, don't tie it into other countries politics, Be mad and who you are.

Out for a bit, but want to come back to this later tonight

That would have gone over my head too, but I'm thankful for the introduction to the term.

Bracketing both the rhetoric (and my general misgivings, real, about inflation of moral condemnation) I think your position (and it's mine too) makes most sense for people who don't have something particular at stake. You're not a US citizen, and I'm on the fringes, disconnected. For a lot of americans, especially minorities (glance quickly at the most recent ten or so supreme court cases and what they're about) it makes a big difference who gets installed as a powerful judge. So that's a tough spot to be in. I'm not saying that means anyone should feel they have to vote for Biden, but ---- it's a tough spot to be in, and it takes a little delicacy to give a good solution to this conundrum. There's probably some stormy rhetorical point that sets delicacy against [better, less limp, more virile virtue] to make and if you want to make that rhetorical point, that's fine, but I think there's an actual, interesting (even important!) discussion to be had here

My mistake, if I hadn't leapt to conclusions, I would have realized you were simply talking about forced labor in the holocaust and I would have seen that it was, in fact, a reasonable and unoffensive comparison.

It's funny, this attempt to foist responsibility upon people who literally have no obligation or responsibility is indistinguishable from the kind of gaslight logic of abusive partners - 'if you dont do this [forced choice] you're going to be responsible for [violent outcome]'. And when push comes to shove they'll say: "OK, it's not like you're making me beat you, but it's your fault really'. Just logic and reason really.

These people who think a lowest common denominator democracy - vote for this peice of shit because he's not this other, slightly bigger piece of shit - is a democracy worth having are not 'progressive'. They're the sonderkommandos of an irredeemable system. — StreetlightX

good god, guy - domestic abusers and nazis? Easy, easy. At this rate of moral condemnation inflation, what are we going to call actual domestic abusers and Nazis? I'm tempermentally more inclined to take your position, minus the woozy rhetoric, but there are good arguments to be made - SCOTUS nominations etc.

I remember meeting you in a dark dream
Of April, you or some girl,
The necklace of wishes alive and breathing around your throat.
In blindness of that dark whose
Brightness turned to sand salt-gazed in noon sun
We could not know each other or know which part
Belonged to the other, pelted in an electric storm of rain.
Only gradually the mounds that meant our bodies
That wore our selves concaved into view
But intermittently as through dark mist
Smeared against fog. No worse time to have come,
Yet all was desiring through already desired and past,
The moment a monument to itself
No one would ever see or know was there.

The grand hotels, dancing girls,
Urge forward under a veil of "lost illusion"
The deed to this day or some other day.
There is no day in the calendar
The dairy company sent out
That lets you possess it wildly like
The body of a dreaming woman in a dream:
All flop over at the top when seized,
The stem too slender, the top too loose and heavy,
Blushing with fine foliage of dreams.
The motor cars, tinsel hats,
Supper of cakes, the amorous children
Take the solitary downward path of dreams
And are not seen again.
What is it, Undine?
The notes can scarcely be heard
In the hubbub of the flattening storm,
WIth the third wish unspoken.

New Poem : Hop o' My Thumb

[end of poem]

Pretty soon oil has
Taken up the place of
The dark around you. It was all
As told, but anyway it never came out just right:
A fraction here, a lisp where it didn't matter.
It has to be presented
Through a final gap: pear trees and flowers
An ultimate resinous wall
Basking in the temperate climate
Of your identity. Sullen fecundity
To be watched over.

But more to the point, what is it about 'mercans and Crocodile Dundee? — Banno

I have a theory on this: Australia, in the American imagination, is more West than our West (& we love our West.) Our West is laconic Clint and ironic (but serious) John Wayne. Croc Dundee has all that masculinity and frontiersmanship + a little flamboyance & charm. Those repressed aspects of the American psyche blocked by Clint & Wayne are let loose with croc dundee, but with enough attendant machismo to make it feel safe (in some ways, though not in others, he prototypes Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow.)

Or so it was, last generation at least. I think the dundee coin has lost its value now, except in the levelling medium of the meme where dundee's the same as spongebob or Boris Johnson.

They're outnumbered by Americans here and that seems to frustrate them. It's like when you corner a Tasmanian devil: even if you don't mean any harm, it attacks anyway. — jamalrob

That reminds me of what a wizened Tasmanian told my father, years ago:

"Legend has it that if you dive far enough into the dreamtime, down past the ruins of dusty frontier towns, down past the layers of fossilized megafauna, down farther still, past the belly of ayers rock (which, like an iceberg, bares to topdwellers only its top tenth), down, down, down; down past even Agartha, deeper, into the inky, brilliant pool from whence the australian soul was born - there, as in a dream, you'll see, gleaming, Stove's Gem.

And that'll make you think twice about idealism, diver boy.'

At that very moment, my father dropped his ceramic Hegel mug and became an eliminative materialist ( by that same stroke, eliminating his marriage, and who knows what else; the eliminative faculty, like the magic of the sorcerer's apprentice, betakes itself, once set free, to apply its powers wantonly, bearing indiscriminately on whatsoever object has the misfortune of meeting its truculent, bull-like path.)

(sorry, reading Moby Dick to while away the empty covid hours. doing my best Melville pastiche)

Small waves strike
The dark stones. The wife reads
The letter. There is nothing irreversible:
Points to the last sibilants
Of invading beef and calico.

New Poem : Farm III

[end of poem]

But it doesn't
Take us into the open sea
Only to the middle of a river
Fumbling which way to go.

thats another point I want to raise - aussies never clean their dishes. I base that on intuition.