wild life

musings and fictions for the nomadic in spirit

Can a society really be said to be competitive, as in a competition to produce winners and losers, when many do not see it as a game, do not agree with the rules, and would play by other rules if they could?

When someone asks ‘what’s the use of philosophy?’ the reply must be aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Is there any discipline apart from philosophy that sets out to criticise all mystification, whatever their source and aim, to expose all the fictions without which reactive forces would not prevail?…Finally, turning thought into something aggressive, active and affirmative. Creating free men, that is to say men who do not confuse the aims of culture with the benefit of the State, morality or religion….Who has an interest in all this but philosophy? Philosophy is at its most positive as a critique, as an enterprise of demystification.

—Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy (via crematedadolescent)

(via crematedadolescent)

Mockingbird, to remain atop the pole,
moves tail feathers like an oar
and shrugs his shoulders,
cancelling out the wind.

The Humanities

The next time someone says
“What are you going to do with that?” in response to your degree in the humanities, say

Well, I’m going to come to grips with death, time itself, freedom, the conditions of true human relationships with myself and with others be they sexual friend or communal relationships, the nature of heroism and the conditions for the legitimacy of the destruction and creation of entire worlds, and the meaning of life.

They will surely pause for a moment, during which you can say,

Did I stutter?

Everyone is a gift and has gifts to give.
Great let’s make a debt economy!

One animal’s throw up is another animal’s ice cream sundae.

A new comedy bit came to me over my raisin bran:
Serial killers romancing each other.

Guy: give me seven sons.
Girl: yes, well I’m not going to kill them by myself!
Girl: look I made a blood pie.
Guy: oh, I could just carve your head right up.
Guy: it’s nothing. You just remind me of my last human lampshade.
Girl: Your last lampshade! You’re so stuck in the past! What about this lampshade now!?
Guy: let’s run away together, and kidnap orphans!
Girl: oh *looks stolen away by passion*, that we could eat???
Guy: yes, that we could grind into a paste and sell to people!
Girl: oh, let’s go today!
Guy: but your dad—
Girl: *looks coyly at the floorboards.*

Liberal: head in the sand, ass in the air position. Gettin’ f*cked!
Conservative: head up the ass. Self-sufficiency!

What Pop-Psych Doesn’t Tell You about Introversion/Extraversion

The origin of the Extraversion/Introversion concept is Carl Jung’s Psychological Types. One soon realizes upon reading it that popular psychology has almost thoroughly edited this concept to the point of re-conceptualization.

Introverts are more in touch with the unconscious, if I’m reading him right, so they feel like they have special powers, but it’s not *theirs*, nor is the subjective world completely their own, it’s shared. This contradicts the everyday epithet “That’s only subjective” as if to say “That is an illusion, only in your head.” Objectivity runs just as much a risk of becoming delusional, to Jung. The empirical world is not the extravert’s special power, more obviously. But the extravert can become lost in the outer world of human affairs and economic logistics. They make a mistake, one that is uniquely their own, and they don’t identify with the outer world. Instead they forget themselves, they don’t ask “What would *I* choose, despite the world’s rules? What is *my* way of looking at this?” They do this only enough to create a safety valve, says J, so they don’t anger their unconscious demons. Still this wouldn’t do the trick, because to Jung it’s not their ego which would reveal something to them, which would continue their healthy adaptation, it’s HUMAN truths, engrained in us from our collective history. That’s what the subjective is, what introverts are tuned into. The extravert, when neurotic to Jung, forgets human destiny by plunging into the nonsense of the moment, by upholding tradition and rules for their own sake, without questioning whether these traditions SHOULD be upheld at all. The introverts mistake is thinking she or he IS human destiny, or IS the tossed away secret of the human past and future. They become resentful and “sentimentally self-loving” from this, he says.

Basically introverts, are in tune with something essentially unpopular and untimely. To borrow from that one book title “The Power of Introverts” –well– their “power” is to bring us back to self-knowledge. “Know thyself” said the oracle of Delphi. Can we truly care for ourselves if we don’t know ourselves? Can we reach our destiny if we have no theory (insight into) our fate?

[As an introvert myself I think that knowledge is of a de-technologized, non-alienated human being, that values the liberty to publicly and biographically engage with the question of what the good life is (i.e. to pursue happiness), and that values some refined form of political equality at the same time. Valuing both is a form of libertarian socialism.]

To Ti Artists and Fi Logicians: Jung’s Tricky Distinction

Many of you intp’s might be infp’s!
*Points at everyone gauntly like a priest in times of plague*
“How!?” you screech, non-emotionally since you’re playing your role well.
Ah, by way of the Fi/Ti distinction being obscure as fuck, at least as it has been described hitherto. The Fe, Te, and Ti are all distinguished quite well by Jung. But what is this Fi? If we don’t know this, then how do you know you’re not an infp? Confusion abounds on the inernet. You may have been misled by this dastardly dark Ti/Fi distinction. Observe the normal claims:

1 Fi is emotional and Ti is not
2 Fi uses value criteria, Ti uses logical criteria
3 Fi uses personal criteria, Ti does not

These are all false and run rampant on the internet. The analytic philosopher in me and the Fi in me (I’m an infp), cannot take this conceptual mess anymore and must put these three to death.

Read More

"In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, ‘From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.’ They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, ‘survival of the fittest,’ by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity….

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.” - Gaston Leval


The most beautiful thing about beauty is that it does not require recognition.

It demands it by existing.

Imagine a job where you empathized with people. You weren’t a therapist or licensed person, but you just listened and let them tell you the dark shit and afterwards said, “Man, that must suck!”

Imagine a job where you left events and situations. Like, you sucked so bad, as a person, that your value consisted in showing up and thus showing people how things *could* in fact get worse, then in leaving which is the relief they pay for.

Imagine a job where your clients are fed up with the condiments and random food they don’t know what to do with, so you just show up with a blender and put random stuff in there while people cringe and then the result is beautiful and you say “I’m a genius!” Because everyone’s entitled to a moment of discovering that bread, frozen biscuit, peanut butter, orange soda, raspberry juice, maple syrup, and blueberries would be bitchin. (disclaimer: They pay for the opportunity of a good shake, not the guarantee of a good shake.)

The lover of knowledge and wisdom may begin to want to be happy instead of right. The truth is death. The more you know, the more painful insights into the discrepancies between what should be and what is, and just the ugly things that happen in general, people’s motivations…
Even ignoring this, the self is an impediment. Technically it’s a fold in the plane of reality, we can’t see how reality is without seeing it THROUGH our senses, but our sense organs are in the way, impeding the raw, pure information! Truth is flat with reality. Illusions like we, are folds.
Life is “illusion”, from the latin ‘ludic’ meaning ‘playful’. Life is beautiful falsity. Live, be beautifully deceived, search for the truth no more. Or learn the hard way. I hope I said this wrong enough to convince you.