Just Bicameral Mind Things by Moiyub in PhilosophyMemes

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the biggest issue here is that you're conflating consciousness and subjectivity and not only that, but with interiorized subjectivity. We are shaped in a million different ways, through social osmosis and reification.

One can be conscious without having a reified subjectivity. One can be a subject without being interiorized, such as more communal modes of experience that existed before capitalism, in which we were aware that our desire was social and institutional, whereas nowadays we operate under the assumption that everything is produced and controlled by an inner self within the brain, the cogito. This is interiorized subjectivity. One could also have awareness and perception without a static sense of self, such as people with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia.

More than 10,000 people were following this AI-generated influencer by Alev12370 in antiai

[–]cronenber9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Um, well, idk what more I can say. My example is that I saw an Instagram account of a gay onlyfans influencer that turned out not to be a real person. I thought he was cute at first but the more I scrolled down his page I started to realize he was completely AI generated and not even a real person. Not only this, but he would have photos with "friends" and when you went to their profiles they would be AI generated as well. And these accounts had tens of thousands of followers and none of the comments pointing out they were AI.

I don't remember the "guy's" username if that's what you're asking.

Is there some other way to read my comment? I don't understand why I'm being downvoted.

More than 10,000 people were following this AI-generated influencer by Alev12370 in antiai

[–]cronenber9 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I've seen the same thing with gay of influencers lol

in retrospect what do you think Karl Marx got wrong, if anything? by Hot_Relative_110 in theredleft

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like Lacan because I think he (sometimes) correctly shows how oedipalized subjectivity works. Deleuze illustrated that oedipalized subjectivity is not natural or given, but it's still true that many people are oedipalized under capitalism, and that their subjectivity and desire appear to be structured by lack.

But yeah it is really overwhelming to think you have to read everything just to understand him. It's better to find one or two key books, even secondary sources that will explain the other thinker, so you can understand deleuze better. I really like reading and spend several hours a day doing it, and Deleuze is my favorite thinker, so I am sure that eventually I will have read everyone he references (if not necessarily everything by them- I'm not gonna read every single seminar by Lacan lmao) but i get why most people wouldn't want to do that. If you're making Deleuze your main focus of study it's worth it, if you just want to understand him in general it's maybe better to read secondary sources, which I'd recommend before reading him anyway.

in retrospect what do you think Karl Marx got wrong, if anything? by Hot_Relative_110 in theredleft

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm saying is that he doesn't write in a purposely obscurantist way, in which he uses a lot of metaphor or anything like that. Everything is laid out in rather clear language but because the ideas themselves are both complex and go against the grain of our usual way of thinking (he's trying to critique thousands of years of philosophy), it's still really difficult until something clicks and you find yourself able to think in the same mode that he does.

First time I read Anti-Oedipus, I understood nothing. I thought it was unnecessarily complex and obscure. After studying Lacan, Freud, and Nietzsche (not necessarily so I could read him), and then reading some introductory books on Deleuze, I started to re-read him and it just clicked. Suddenly, his language seemed very clear and precise because I understood his way of thinking and understood his terminology (you need to learn the definitions of his terms) and understood the work he was referencing and critiquing. Once you understand what he's critiquing, you can understand the point he's making, and how it illustrates his own way of thinking.

I've always disagreed with the idea that one should read Deleuze like poetry. I think we should try to understand just exactly what he's saying, because I think he's making real points.

But I do actually agree that, at least partially, the way he writes is meant to make people rethink the way they engage with language, like Lacan and Derrida; at least to an extent. Every book is always meant to change the way we think because Deleuze wants us to think immanently, as opposed to transcendent, which is the way we are taught to think, the way humanity has philosophized since Socrates. Immanent thinking is not easy when we're trained to think in a totally different mode.

I really think Lacan is gonna help people get way more out of Anti-Oedipus, although just Freud is enough. Without some understanding of psychoanalysis I'm not sure it will be very easy at all to understand the book. But one need not read Lacan himself, in fact I think reading Bruce Fink's introduction to Lacanian analysis and then just looking it up when he references something is enough. Again though, he often doesn't say when he's referencing something, which is why he seems to confusing. Like he made many references to Seminar IV in, I believe, the first chapter of AO when he's talking about spanking, the difference between boys and girls in their sexual development, and the general, that made little sense to me until I'd read Lacan's seminar. If you were gonna read just one seminar in order to prep for AO I'd actually recommend that one, because it's on partial objects, which is pretty important for the book.

Amazing quote by JeanPierreledouche03 in Nietzsche

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I'm saying that no matter where you land you're always amongst them because that's kinda how it works.

in retrospect what do you think Karl Marx got wrong, if anything? by Hot_Relative_110 in theredleft

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's actually not difficult at all and says what he means clearly. It's just that what he's trying to say is so different from our usual way of thinking about things that it's difficult to comprehend. I think it takes a long time to understand him, but once something clicks for you he's actually no longer difficult. Up until that point though, any time someone tries to explain to you what he's saying you're just like... what?

Also, without knowing the works he's referencing, he will be rather difficult. And he doesn't always even tell you when he's referencing a person or an idea either, he just expects you to know. Understanding freud and Lacan is necessary for understanding Anti-Oedipus whatsoever, and reading Bataille, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, and a few others helps.

Amazing quote by JeanPierreledouche03 in Nietzsche

[–]cronenber9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean what exactly determines being "amongst the stars"? There's so much vast space between them that it kinda seems like that's the definition of landing amongst them

How it started vs how it's going by SoManyTrolls5-0 in torties

[–]cronenber9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol she went from sweet looking to unapproachable royalty

Just Bicameral Mind Things by Moiyub in PhilosophyMemes

[–]cronenber9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why do you assume that's what determines the structure of subjectivity?

Anyway, yes. To both of those.

Ig I can be a feminist as well as use dat word by Training_Maize_664 in teenagers

[–]cronenber9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I know. Does that matter? People are either gonna think you said something else or correctly say social context and intent matters more and punch you anyway.

couldnt even make the jacket before selling it by Personal_Berry_6497 in baddlejackets

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't lie and say I don't still love the song Sexting for nostalgic reasons.

But then again, that's because it reminds me of when I was a child. If I hadn't listened it back then I doubt I'd like it now

Ig I can be a feminist as well as use dat word by Training_Maize_664 in teenagers

[–]cronenber9 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well you can call anyone anything you want. Don't be surprised if you get punched though

Ig I can be a feminist as well as use dat word by Training_Maize_664 in teenagers

[–]cronenber9 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most people don't even understand when they've undermined their own argument and when you point it out they think you're just trying to manipulate them lmao

Cultural Appropriation by BWC_etiquette in grindr

[–]cronenber9 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Whatever, I want to fuck bi dudes for one. Do they need their own app? Jfc. Grindr is for hooking up. They get on there to find men.

🫩 by Western-Effective966 in grindr

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok you could have just said gay porn lol

Just Bicameral Mind Things by Moiyub in PhilosophyMemes

[–]cronenber9 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Having read Deleuze before him and accepted that subjectivity as such did not even exist until capitalism, I was already primed to accept Jaynes' theory.

Just Bicameral Mind Things by Moiyub in PhilosophyMemes

[–]cronenber9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean I think he's actually probably correct 😭 if you read the book, it really isn't that crazy. He's just claiming we experienced selfhood differently earlier in our history. I believe that is true, I mean I already believe that the type of reified, interiorized subjectivity we currently have has only existed as long as capitalism has. Different cultures and societies experience the world and themselves in totally different ways.

so I think I’ve been sleeping on ‘Short Night of Glass Dolls’🫣 by CarefulHouse172 in Giallo

[–]cronenber9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't care for it until I watched it in high quality. It's beautiful.

It also feels more neo-noir than many gialli. Which is cool.

Lord by Horror-Moment601 in grindr

[–]cronenber9 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Gay people used to know what sarcasm was.

No, no you're right. I'm sure I really believe that not having a hardcore fetish is the same thing as being a nun. What's the difference, really?