wild life

musings and fictions for the nomadic in spirit

Anti-Utilitarianism

Let’s say you mess with 2 people. Or let’s say you mess with 1. Doesn’t make a difference. The number of victims alone shouldn’t matter. What you’re doing isn’t worse the more people you do it to. You can mess with thousands of people. What matters is who they are and how well connected they are. Because that’s how you’re going to get what’s coming to you.

Out There

Somewhere a man and a woman actually love each other
and for the right reasons.

Anti-Future

Drones greet you this morning at your window, hustling hackers perform raids, concerted hits on IMF rep’s that will not be broadcast, rather see the new devices for becoming lost (found by the grid), martial law, through the metal detectors, the sovereign exerts itself on bare bodies stripped of all rights, monday 3:31 pm an organizer’s head sprayed against the building before the protest began, “nothing to see here, move along,” the logic of the camp, America, sweet FEMA camps of the new racial organs organized by ruler technologists like “benign” tumors, sweet hick militia in the woods and sweet federate insurgents, American warlords like apple pie in the gray clear-cut with their kinks in the basement, the glitching of the grand narratives, the breakdown of the subject, hyper-slum capitalism and its hyper-produced gated-community enclaves, shielded from the earth-becoming-venus, bioengineered elite children, robot sex slaves, all information groundless, all attention everywhere and nowhere, racketeering between cops and gangs at food centers, Chinese tolls and homeless marauders at every highway, the absolute, universal prescription of the human as only either Consumer or Entrepreneur, the disappearing into cyber-worlds of all intimacy and vulnerability, whereupon both are data-chopped and sold to companies, who then reinsert products and “apps” back into the cyber world that “make the connection” people long for, until there are so many layers of mediation and levels of remove that the world becomes populated by 14 billion people yet only one person, packets of paperwork required to do anything, your card is declined, obsolete in unemployment lines in the “work ethic seminar” quarantine zone 58, ultra-diseases in the petrol beds, technocratic empire of the grid, lock the failsafes of the social combine, feel the infinite hierarchy, YOU signed the contract, YOUR responsibility, “What is your net worth?” asks your date over champagne, as the white-trash from your graduating class drink chalk water and eat pastebags of food from Monsanto, choppers crack like dark mechanical bats into the night, you are secure, your resumé is growing, you’re saving up to one day see the moon beyond the dark moth of the sky, its red lines of post-fracked scars like cracks in a furnace.

Worldly Paradoxes

You need money to get money. Money breeds itself.

You need experience in the job to get any such job, but the job is the only way to get the experience.

If you are down, you will be pushed down further, because if you’re down, thinks the pusher, you must deserve it. If you are up you will be lifted up further, because if you are up you must deserve it. (Existential escalators.) E.g. if you are unhappy, you will lose friends, thus making you more unhappy, thus making you prone to lose more friends, and vice-versa.

You say you want to do a certain thing, but once you do it you don’t. (You want to remain thinking that you want to do that thing, because thinking about it is what you really want to do.)

Women want novelty (non-security) from their significant others, yet they want security (non-novelty). Men want intimacy (transparency) between themselves and their significant others, yet they want to be mysterious themselves to another mysterious person, an unknown girl.

A guy needs a girl to show her that he isn’t needy.

Babies ruin sex life, but a sex life makes babies.

We wish for a(n element of the) past or future, which if actualized would leave us yearning for yet another past or future.

We wish we had more fortune, which if we had, would eventually be taken for granted. Or we wish we had things like others, but those others wish they had things like still (higher) others. (Infinite hierarchy of envy and comparison)

You needed the wisdom to prevent the catastrophe, but you needed the catastrophe to gain the wisdom.

crematedadolescent:

First, I think it’s important to interpret his discussion of “Types” in light of his other discussions, namely those pertaining to the misguidedness of stark dualisms. It’s conventional to speak of atomic Types, but - especially for later Nietzsche - they are merely that—convenient; from ‘Dionysus’s-eye-view’, these Types are gross miscalculations, desperate, self-deceptive endeavors to control Becoming by stamping it with Being.
Now I’ll speak conventionally (and this is a redundancy, because speaking itself is conventional, watered-down reality [Gay Science 354]): Nietzsche does advocate the master Type, unequivocally. He advocates the “right mixture” but only insofar as the slave’s POV is a means to the end of enhancing the master’s. The scope of the slave is tinted by ressentiment—and not just tinted: the slave’s perspective is an ass-backwards distortion. The free spirit is one who sprouts as many eyes as possible as it were. Eyes high and eyes low. One who can do this is a master. If you just have eyes high you’re a conservative tool.
This is where it gets funny for me, because most of my followers are presumably leftists. Nietzsche, throughout his oeuvre, champions rank-ordering [Rangordnung] or hierarchical-thought. All too common is the conflation of Nietzsche’s perspectivism with pluralism. This is a travesty and a joke, an appropriation of Nietzsche by nihilists. Though it’s not like he didn’t expect to be misunderstood. Leftists, though they may physically read it, do not read this dimension of Nietzsche, typically. It clashes with their egalitarian agenda, so they pretend it isn’t there, literally. A direct consequence of his emphasis on rank-ordering is that the voice of the downtrodden is relegated to the status of “wrong”. It is merely envious, merely vengeful. This is all merely my opinion of Nietzsche anyway. One other I’ve seen eye to eye with on this matter is ludimagister - you might want to ask him what he thinks.



There’s more to say than I can fit in those damn comments (tumblr isn’t set up for discussion is it?) Deleuze didn’t think Nietzsche’s will to power was about power over someone or having control, but about affirming one’s difference (and differential calculus blah blah). Macht not Reich.
He’s not egalitarian, but he doesn’t seem to be a state-capitalist of today, or even pro -monarchy or -aristocracy like Aristotle (at least he ridicules the virtues that Aristotle relied on as constituting aristocracy and monarchy). 

Also he’s against the state, just as much as he’s derisive of anarchist “dogs”. He calls the state a cold monster. And I don’t think he would be for capitalism, anymore than Plato glorified merchants. He advocates art. Capitalism is probably most antithetical to art than any other thing I can think of, in its emphasis on production of anything anyone wants (the they, herd, crowd), or its insistence on usefulness (slavery). So one can see why leftists like him. It sounds more compatible with the free spirit than the master. And the ubermensch, in my conception, is just someone who has complete control over his affects and over his thoughts. Whereas we seem to be more like sponges of info or vibes.

crematedadolescent:

First, I think it’s important to interpret his discussion of “Types” in light of his other discussions, namely those pertaining to the misguidedness of stark dualisms. It’s conventional to speak of atomic Types, but - especially for later Nietzsche - they are merely that—convenient; from ‘Dionysus’s-eye-view’, these Types are gross miscalculations, desperate, self-deceptive endeavors to control Becoming by stamping it with Being.

Now I’ll speak conventionally (and this is a redundancy, because speaking itself is conventional, watered-down reality [Gay Science 354]): Nietzsche does advocate the master Type, unequivocally. He advocates the “right mixture” but only insofar as the slave’s POV is a means to the end of enhancing the master’s. The scope of the slave is tinted by ressentiment—and not just tinted: the slave’s perspective is an ass-backwards distortion. The free spirit is one who sprouts as many eyes as possible as it were. Eyes high and eyes low. One who can do this is a master. If you just have eyes high you’re a conservative tool.

This is where it gets funny for me, because most of my followers are presumably leftists. Nietzsche, throughout his oeuvre, champions rank-ordering [Rangordnung] or hierarchical-thought. All too common is the conflation of Nietzsche’s perspectivism with pluralism. This is a travesty and a joke, an appropriation of Nietzsche by nihilists. Though it’s not like he didn’t expect to be misunderstood. Leftists, though they may physically read it, do not read this dimension of Nietzsche, typically. It clashes with their egalitarian agenda, so they pretend it isn’t there, literally. A direct consequence of his emphasis on rank-ordering is that the voice of the downtrodden is relegated to the status of “wrong”. It is merely envious, merely vengeful. This is all merely my opinion of Nietzsche anyway. One other I’ve seen eye to eye with on this matter is ludimagister - you might want to ask him what he thinks.

There’s more to say than I can fit in those damn comments (tumblr isn’t set up for discussion is it?) Deleuze didn’t think Nietzsche’s will to power was about power over someone or having control, but about affirming one’s difference (and differential calculus blah blah). Macht not Reich. He’s not egalitarian, but he doesn’t seem to be a state-capitalist of today, or even pro -monarchy or -aristocracy like Aristotle (at least he ridicules the virtues that Aristotle relied on as constituting aristocracy and monarchy).

Also he’s against the state, just as much as he’s derisive of anarchist “dogs”. He calls the state a cold monster. And I don’t think he would be for capitalism, anymore than Plato glorified merchants. He advocates art. Capitalism is probably most antithetical to art than any other thing I can think of, in its emphasis on production of anything anyone wants (the they, herd, crowd), or its insistence on usefulness (slavery). So one can see why leftists like him. It sounds more compatible with the free spirit than the master. And the ubermensch, in my conception, is just someone who has complete control over his affects and over his thoughts. Whereas we seem to be more like sponges of info or vibes.

crematedadolescent asked: Lincoln, would you mind if, after it's written, I posted my answer publicly? Strangely enough lately I've been wanting to write a little something about these things you bring up.

Not at all. I was looking for an “ask” feature on your page so it could be just that.

Sometimes one cannot respect oneself and follow another’s advice at the same time. Arrogance is self-protection. Sometimes the self should be protected.

If you respect your thought, and keep the thoughts that are borne by an everlasting childhood within you, you will encounter them again yet articulated brilliantly in other thinkers of genius, and you will see true Mit-dasein (being-with). Those that you do not encounter after wide and long researches, you must write. *There* is creativity.

There is a well we drink from
deep inside us,
when we are satisfied that there are no answers.

Love,
therefore nihilism is false.

Someone who is in love can’t believe that for xyz reasons, the world is meaningless. S/he has a different world. You can say it to a perfectly happy scientist or a depressed person, and both will agree that it’s meaningless in some sense. It’s strange to say what the world or life really means, and it depends on how we’re meaning ‘meaning’. I don’t know, beyond *my* being in it. Therefore it would be an appeal to ignorance to say it means a certain thing, even to say that its meaning is “in the eye of the beholder” i.e. relative.

'Meaning' could mean a product of free choice, a state of mind linked to determined choice, a product of understanding, or the product of intention. The nihilist understands the world, makes some kind of choices in it, and intends things. Yet it is still meaningless for him. Does he therefore require the world to understand itself, intend things or make choices? He would be confused. Perhaps he should fall in love.

"If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire.” —Nietzsche | Daybreak

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.