/dead/ - Post Left conspiracy HQ

Where your hopes and dreams come to die.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(133.17 KB 1280x720 despair.jpg)
Comrade 11/21/2020 (Sat) 14:51:39 No. 1583
How do I get rid of the spooks in my head that tell me that I am worthless and the world would be better off if every trace of my existence was erased?
by realising that you're not that important
>>1584 But I am the most important person in my life.
(65.66 KB 1080x571 20201031_031726.jpg)
>>1583 >>1583 You are not worthless, anon! You are an actual, living human being. You have an existence of your own. These ideals that you might think you don't live up to, they are abstract, they have no existence outside of you. and what is there even to live up to? You are the way you are anon, just like we all. Saying that you should, could or ought to be better, more productive is just putting up these could-be versions of you that are not only oppressive but also impossible to fully realise! Of course everyone could be better, just like you could have been born rich or not all, what matters is our concrete, lived reality!
>>1583 spooks wont cut it, you need post-de-spooking why would you think you're worthless? well, experiences of people telling you that you are, or the feeling from yourself that you dont live up to expectations or you simply cant find value in what you do. Thats fair and I think a lot of people go through that. But the thing is, value is totally subjective and built on nothing. People who are totally secure about their positive worth are fucking narcissists and conservatives (they take society's values at face value, or ascribe intrinsic value to themselves for no reason) what you need is to go further in nihilism and re-spook yourself now. You need ideology. You need a value system based on nothing but feels and faith. The underlying reason to buy into it is because it allows you to have a sense of value, right direction, higher unity, etc. But you need to not care about that, be a chad, and believe in something anyways. Love facilitates this best. Find something you love - i.e. invest your libido into something. Get a boyfriend or go on long walks in nature or join or start a political org. Understand that what you're doing is fundamentally absurd and even sort of horrible to those subjected. No one wants your love - love is pain and discontent. Now give it anyways, because it's pure and good and you have no choice. Thats the deal, jack. Fall in love
(12.67 KB 600x341 FXLThSZ.jpg)
>>1587 >You need ideology. You need a value system based on nothing but feels and faith.
(34.07 KB 600x600 george.jpg)
>>1592 sorry champ but everyone (who isnt at suicide's door) is spooked and thats a good thing
>>1586 That's a great quote
>>1594 Guess I'm just build differently. Jokes aside, you do know that not every ideal is a spook but only those that are imposed on the individual by hes sorrounding or through institutions. Like, unless you create a framework in which you have ideas that force yourself to believe in even tho you know they are false, you literally can't spook yourself.
>>1606 "voluntarily" worshipped ideals are the biggest spooks of them all
>>1609 It's not about 'voluntary' ideals, it's wether they are counsciously reflected ones or imposed ones.
>>1606 What is an ideal if not a concept raised over me, one that I should strive for and seek to attain? It is pretty clearly a spook. Did you post the quote in >>1586? Stirner says that while attacking the Christian and Humanist ideals. The egoist is perfect because they have no ideal over them.
>>1613 Ok bro, what are we talking about here? If I want to be a muscular uber-chad, that is an ideal. If I want to life without wage-labor, that's also an ideal. Literally any thought expressing relations that arent concrete reality are ideals. So basically, if I understand you correctly - egoists should just have no goals to realise because any goal one sets for himself contains rules and relations - if I wanna be fit I have to train. That's really fucking retarded. A spook is a spook because it posses people - it's an immaterial thing that has effects on the actual behaviour of people and is justified through abstract notions - but if I choose to follow an ideal for the sake of my ego, because I find being fit enjoyable or I don't like the tiring wage-labor lifestyle, the ideal deosnt posses me, it's not imposed, it was created by me! That's literally what the creative nothing is! He creates shit out of himself and doesnt just not do or strive to do anything! That's a defeatist position! Now, if it fulfills your desire to not have any goals and just go with the flow or whatever - do what you wnat to! But to me that sounds boring as fuck! >Stirner says that while attacking the Christian and Humanist ideals Im well fucking aware - it's not a quote I wrote that shit.
>>1612 >>1606 ideals are never purely imposed, all learning involves active participation from the learner you accept the ideals what makes them a spook is that they're unquestionable and everyone has axiomatic values that will not stand to question. Values are not on any logical plane, so they have to be left alone, lest ye fall into a hysterical fit that ends in suicide the only way out is accepting either your old values and admitting defeat before them after attempting to question them, or installing new values in their place. You're either a dirty conservative or a beastly stalinist. Choose your pick. Everyone that acts is acting based on values. If you exist still, this is a choice and an act. If you were catatonic i'd let it slide and assume maybe there's no spooks in there we always install our own values and beliefs, just sometimes we do it under coerced or impressionable circumstances, or we regret the beliefs later. Im not saying it's bad necessarily to question as far as we can and revisit preconceptions, but ultimately you need some bits of uncritically accepted (or critically accepted but ultimately immovable, if you're cynically minded) bits of belief they dont need to compromise a belief system even, but they'll be there in every functional person they arent any less of spooks if you believe in them wholeheartedly either - the most pious christian im sure believes that they not only believe in god but that they want to believe in god and are glad they werent born to a jewish family. That doesnt make them unspooked just because they accept their base judgements and could "hypothetically" critique them if they wanted. Everyone works on structurally axiomatic beliefs. The best you can do is replace one with another, but none are perfect (because they cant be judged - themselves being criteria of judgement) the only despooked person is one suffering acute hysteria, catatonia, ego-death, or physical actual death
(1.71 MB 500x500 georgeimplying.gif)
>>1616 >if I choose to follow an ideal for the sake of my ego, because I find being fit enjoyable or I don't like the tiring wage-labor lifestyle, the ideal deosnt posses me, it's not imposed >the ideal deosnt posses me, it's not imposed take the christian pill - accept that you're submitting to a higher power, and then accept the higher power also as an emergent social and psychological phenomenon that you create with your actions it's cyclical, and you're caught in the loop. You've been caught in a loop since you were brought into this world. Where do you think your "ego" came from? This was not your chosing. Obeying the ego is a spook as well. It may be your spook of choice, and thats fine. It's more open and honest to acknowledge it as such though, rather than pretending you occupy some special null category. You had values imposed on you, and you chose by those values to disregard maybe many of them and decide your path. This is even a natural maturation process of the psyche. We start bashing the ideas in our heads against each other and seeing what breaks and what stands strong. But at the end of the day you're left with some positive thing that often isnt able to self destruct (if pure critique is left, then yeah it can probably self-destruct and you're left sitting there not knowing what to do or if it matters to consider what to do, if you should do a thing based on a whim, or if you even have whims, etc. It's not a state most people are ever in, and even less people are in it for any long amount of time. Eventually critique stops eating itself and you resume normal life, because something imposes itself - maybe the superego, maybe base physical urges, maybe memories and sense of self and then narcissistic desire to keep alive that identity, i dont know). That positive thing isnt just the font from which all things emerge, it's fundamentally artificial and manipulable also, but it is the source of desires while itself being a replaceable thing rather than the irreducible nothing. Thinking about this more... i think really the mind is more modular than concentric. There's no untaintable ego behind it all. There are value machines, data machines, all sorts of data manipulation machines, self-perception machines, desiring machines, hallucinatory-creative machines, action machines, etc. They all tie in, and to some extent need each other for different purposes.
>>1619 your definition of spooks is spooked. I don't know about you but I hold no unchangeable values, in fact I change my 'values' all the fucking time. 3 years ago I was a fucking tankie, now I say to hell with tankies. 5 years ago I thought that feminism and trans-rights were complete bs, and that class politics is what it's all about, now I hold opposite views. >what makes them a spook is that they're unquestionable the only thing that seems to be unquestionable here is, apparently, your opinion that everybody is necessarily spooked, which I guess is correct in your case lol. >Everyone that acts is acting based on values. K bro, lets say we take a pious christian, who would never steal, and starve him and bring him in a situation where the only way for him to aquire food is through theft - you think hes gonna act according to his desire or his values? He might fell bad afterwards, but he will most likely act according to his desire because desires are concrete and values are abstract and your evaluation that everyone acts according to values is especially abstract. >>1620 >Obeying the ego is a spook as well. top kek, how does one opressive himself? of cousre egoism can be spooked too, just like at >>1619 for whome spooks are so powerful that individual agency literally doesnt exist - but I do as I please and if I one day make a decision I can throw it away the next day because its my property and I do with it as I wish.
>>1616 There's a difference between having an ideal (to be powerful) and having a goal (to become powerful).
>>1630 ok whatever, then lets call it goals, idgaf stupid fucking semantics
>>1621 i swear we've had this same conversation before.... anyways not everything is a spook, spook re-read my posts because you dont undserstand at all what you think you're against i say that beliefs can change, but even things like being a tankie or a feminist are higher level than what i mean. These are more easily changeable. I love the methodology of questioning as much as you can so that nothing is untouchable and held above me, and you can go far with this when dealing with higher level thoughts/beliefs. But what underlies those beliefs, their basic relevance, and even the desire to hold them or critique them, is values. These values are able to be critiqued to some extent, but eventually if you're a functioning person, you accept on some level that they can't be touched, except in the case of leveraging one against another or leveraging one against itself in order to install a new value. I'd say though that even in that situation, you're acting out the work of some more hidden and less visible spirit.
(85.71 KB 1024x745 monke7.jpg)
> K bro, lets say we take a pious christian, who would never steal, and starve him and bring him in a situation where the only way for him to aquire food is through theft - you think hes gonna act according to his desire or his values? He might fell bad afterwards, but he will most likely act according to his desire because desires are concrete and values are abstract and your evaluation that everyone acts according to values is especially abstract. obeying desire is based on some value that grants them positive sway over our decisions. When i say value im not talking about stupid high level beliefs that you areticulate - those are in a lot of cases just cope in order to attempt to reflect the unknowable residues anyways. What matters is the deep values that we all hold - they're not fundamentally that different from higher level ones, they're just the ones that we cant get rid of because every single action is value-laden and so we're reduced to hysterical inaction if we attempt to abandon all values. If you chose to make some food, you're acting on values. You feel like the module feeding you desire for food and modules feeding you the correct steps to take are to be listened to. We have many different "machines" in the brain pushing different agendas and taking care of different tasks. At some point, they need to me resolved with each other, because often they're antagonistic or just compete for what to do in a given situation. This fundamental action of reconciling antagonistic systems is based on a machine of valuation. The only crazy thing im saying i think, is that this valuing machine that prioritizes this or that, it's not separate from our higher level (more abstract and accessible) values. So we can tear down values, beliefs, knowledge, etc. as far as we want basically, and it will change how we live and act if we are actually de-spooking and changing our priorities and worldview. But there's a point where you need some values in place, and my whole point is just that you can't get rid of this, so structurally they're untouchable. And any change you cause on them is ultimately done by them, so they're not fundamentally gotten rid of ever. There is always some residue that cant be accessed because the desire to access and change that value is based on some value itself >top kek, how does one opressive himself? please
>>1633 >But what underlies those beliefs, their basic relevance, and even the desire to hold them or critique them, is values. This structuring of the human mind seems very artifical to me. Could you give an example of what such a value might be? >>1634 >they're just the ones that we cant get rid of because every single action is value-laden and so we're reduced to hysterical inaction if we attempt to abandon all values Maybe I'm just too stupid, but I think you haven't made a good case for their existence, because yas you said, 'higher level' values can change and you havent really described what the more fundamentel values are except from the fact that tey are the base of the higher ones, which doesnt really make sense to me and says nothing about their actual content. >We have many different "machines" in the brain pushing different agendas and taking care of different tasks. What do you mean by modules? Hunger is created by the bodies need for nutrition manifesting itself through bio-psychological processes within the counsciosness as a percieved urge. What foods I like is based on my experience of eating and the different contexts this eating took place (like when children are forced to eat certain things, they might more likely percieve them to not be delicious, while food that's only hardly acessible or reserved for special occasions gets the opposite reaction). What steps I have to take to make my food is informed by learning the way to cook it and the material steps that have to be made to cook it. Where does a value come into it here? >But there's a point where you need some values in place And when is that point? So far with every 'value' I've brought up you agreed that it can be changed - so what can't be? >And any change you cause on them is ultimately done by them, so they're not fundamentally gotten rid of ever. This seems like circular logic to me. Again, maybe I'm just too retarded to get this, but I'm really not getting it ;_;. Do you have some theory or something that I could look up that describes this thought further?
>>1631 It's not just semantics. When you hold up an Ideal over yourself, you split your I into two, into what it is and into what is must become. But it is possible to have goals while preserving your wholeness.
>>1635 i agree that i havent really made a case for the mind actually being this way, but its kinda difficult to make any case like that without going extreme into citing academic bullshit and trying to come up with a whole continuous framework or something it's based on my reading on consciousness from neuroscientists and some more recent additions from psychologists/philosophers, and my own personal experiences with having a mind and exploring it and turning bits off and back on with drugs. I think the most obvious and first/primal conclusion that most people who really get into this stuff is that there is no "I", it's all really a bunch of disparate functions that take inputs and give outputs to each other, and eventually your consciousness (for some reason). One great example is eyesight. You dont receive direct raw stimulus. You receive data that's been properly fucked with and distorted and added to by some function/s whose job is to do that. Your sense of textures, your peripheral vision, your sense of scale, etc. etc. are all made much more pronounced by additions from memoy and general knowledge. Sight is in huge part "hallucination". And then the thing that we feel/observe from gets the input. These two functions are separate though, the data molding part and the subjective part. So this is what i mean for machines/modules. We also have machiens that value. This value comes in the form of discriminations and desires. These desires can be hunger, tiredness, hornyness, etc. Discriminatory values choose what to listen to at any given moment. Sometimes you're hungry and tired and have to decide which to pursue. This is a base level value judgement. I know it's probably sounding like stupid semantics or something at this point, because most people in a political mindset think of "value" as like a consciously held belief about like ought to do this or that, often applying it to other people, etc. But i see a continuum from the base level values up to the higher level, more conscious or articulable values. Another good thing to look into here is pareto's theory of residues and derivations. Often what we see and call "values" is more just a post-hoc rationalizing or setting-in-stone of something deeper and harder to access. This is one example of lower level values ascending through abstraction to become held beliefs. But so here's what i mean when i critique a sort of vulgar hedonist egoism: there's nothing wrong with your desires, they're the wellspring of all good things and enjoyment. So im not saying "no its better to keep them in check." But by choosing to value more basal and honestly just loud desires (e.g. anger is more of a second tier emotion, but it's louder than the hurt/anxiety it's derived from) like hunger, lust, anger, you're putting in place a discriminatory system that favors those values over other values (e.g. long-term planning, or just other ways of maximizing pleasure). That same exact type of discrimination is what leads in the first place to your decision to implant that discriminating rule or machine. Why did you chose one and not the other? There's no transcendentally free individual will that just chose it - if something like that existed, it would be the biggest spook anyways, by having pre-made or opaque opinions and decrees that we just have to heed. So, another option (and what i think is the case) is that you chose it based on another basically horizontal but maybe well-entrenched valuing machine. In other words, a spook. If it's unacknowledged, it's not able to be brought down. And this ties into my previous posts more, the point that: even if you did find and lay out all the valuing machines in your head, you wouldnt be able to do anything with them without giving in to one or another. The best we can do is bash the things against each other and see what breaks - i.e. what is inconsistent with another, stronger or more basal value. And here, honestly, im going to change my stance on what i said before: i dont think that you can leverage critique against itself. I've had a crisis of value before by doing too deep of a stirnoid cleaning, and all i did was try to find new more traditional values in the hopes that maybe something would stick. In the end what i was left with was that root of a tendency to critique values and things, and also weird trad aesthetic on top. I guess the only way to critique critique is to adopt conservative stances but those cant last anyways. Anyways my point is that your only ground to stand on when attacking ghosts is some value system, and you cant shovel out the ground under your feet. And if you somehow do manage to, the result is inability to act until some discrimination system is reinstated. How can you really think that something is below you when you're not able to do with it as you please? Even the option of one thing or another isnt really good enough i think. What you're left with is either a situation where you depose your king then elect him back in right after because everything starts crumbling, or you instate a party system maybe where yknow you can choose to have a few options for what values hold sway over you, but thats about all. Fundamentally we're shackled creatures, and this is fine. Put another way: if you think of yourself as a body without organs, those independent organs/machines are living in a very oppressive or maybe utopian society. They have no freedom. "You" are this society. When you identify fully with this whole organism/body, then you're in control, but in that case you're in control no matter what. Most people though identify with some part of their psyche, like e.g. they have some part (i think the idea of the superego fits well here) that they feel isnt of them, but is representative of the desires of a foreign power (a parent, religious teacher, school teacher, government, etc.), and they identify more or less with primal desires and the regulation of those desires. Lots of people see themselves as the controllers of desires. Most egoists i see identify more with the primal desires. But all this probably doesnt really seem like too much of a disagreement to you i feel like? because your deal is also that a spook is just what's imposed from outside, and not what's internal or chosen. Personally i see this as total trash, i dont see a big destinction between me and my causes/impacts to my development and my surroundings. Stirner was really into this kind of stuff too it seems like. Maybe its time to re-read him though cause it's been a while. So yeah idk i'd usually guess it's a lib/leftoid holdover, the idea that it's internal vs external, but i dont wanna assume shit or be rude. Personally i see spooks as described by stirner as being what you dont let yourself examine, so it's a more simple conscept for a more religious context, and only really best applicable to higher level rationalizations, but obviously the same methods of critique and inspection can go as far as you want, and my point is that there's no cutoff between rationalizations and core values and basal discrimination and desiring systems.
>>1635 >>1641 Also a sidenote: i think often we need a reason to live or justify what we do in general. This is interesting cause it poses itself as a high-level value that plugs into a low-level spot, by morally allowing action basically. But i think ultimately this is a necessary cope - the real desire that's hard to access is just to live and enjoy, but we need for some reason to give a proximal reason to it. This is why i say basically that we need spooks. We're never going to get rid of acting under the influence of irrational forces. If we get rid of the irrational forces, we lose all desire and reason to live or act. But we cant critique these things because they are too vulnerable to it and at the same time totally slippery to it. They're not able to be put under the blade of rational critique, and there is no "honest election" of choice when it comes to choosing what you value - its circular. So the best we can do is try to nurture what we see as positive meaning and value in our lives, and if we see none, then we need to somehow awaken it. And usually its various loves that do that. A love of nature, family, fellow workers, a passion project, a language, whatever. We need some kind of reason to say to us "hey, its okay to exist and make yourself happy", but without being that explicit about it. Thats exactly the unspoken part. We need something to put our libidinal energy into in order to be happy. And we need it to be irrational, and also our own "free choice" to obey this thing. It's higher powers all the way down, but thats egoism too i think, so dont get me wrong i dont see myself as against stirnoids and egoism or anything, just the basic ghostbuster mindset isnt always the cure - i read this article maybe? by Latour, known for being a big name in the critique of science, and he said that he still thinks that a lot of scientific ideas are vulnerable, but that doesnt necessarily mean we should tear them down in every way possible to see what we're left with, but rather we should nurture them. Maybe our power of critique/dismissal are too strong and dont unleash truth, or they give us a cold sort of truth like "i think therefore i am" type of useless truth, and to get anywhere good with our beliefs, we need to nurture what seems promising, and help grow our little grove of knowledge and passion and love. Things are fragile and need to be treated right sometimes, with watering and all that. Cant call in the ghostbusters for everything, sometimes you need a gardener
>>1635 on the last point about theory, hmm this is a fun one https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00697/full idk i havent read anything that gives these ideas all as one together, i can tell that i base my thinking though on zizek and deluze a bit, deluze mainly for framing things and language i guess, and some freud too i guess. And probably others.... and of course my own experiences

Delete
Report

no cookies?
__divBanCaptcha_location__