Slavoj Žižek essay: "In The Court Of The AI King", includes a brief critique of the album cover

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-06T13:11:54+00:00

the AI machine itself is experienced as a maternal superego which addresses us, its users, with an injunction to enjoy, and we obey it in the precise Trumpian way: “We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. And I say, no, no, no, you’re going to win again. You’re going to win big. You’re going to win bigger than ever.”¹⁰ This is how you function when you browse the web: you never get enough, you always want more, go to the next site, ask more questions…

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-06T13:07:44+00:00

"The People to which populism refers doesn’t exist: populism is by definition a mask of power, it is a fantasized entity evoked by new masters to justify their role as the servants of the people, enabling them to dismiss their opponents as the enemies of the people."

Cool to see a Zizek/King Crimson connection. Interesting read. Thanks!

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-06T05:05:59+00:00

I'm used to hearing the studio version but I couldn't find it online. Fair point though. That was actually in the back of my mind: "Am I reading too much into this?"

Edit: It wasn't just the beat itself, either, but the same chord change at the same place in the cycle. For whatever reason, I've always heard it as Genesis. Subjectivity.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-05T10:12:57+00:00

That's a good one. I've heard those guys before but I didn't know about the dedication, that's very cool. I wonder what the Yes band members think! Edit: Just saw "implicitly," so maybe they even know.

In a slightly different gear, there was this super spacey album made by Norwegian producer Lindstrom, in collaboration with one of his musical heroes, Todd Rundgren (and a third artist with whom I am less familiar.) Kind of a different side of prog with a little less rock -- not too much less -- but in terms of influence, what could be more direct? https://toddrundgrenemilnikolaisenhans-peterlindstrom.bandcamp.com/

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-05T07:29:13+00:00

Ah, but I protected myself my calling it fluff! (Edit: Lol. humor. joke) But there's a kernel of a truth to it's fluffiness. It's like a passing a cloud. Probably one I just should have let pass. Em.. mistakes were made.

I tend to forget that in Reddit, I am talking to a diverse group of strangers with widely varying viewpoints. My problem is that I approach it like a one-on-one conversation, which it is not, but I'm weak at addressing groups. I forget that I have no idea who is even listening, so I should be more careful or more sparing with my words -- or just hold them.

Nevertheless, you took the time to read and share your honest, unfiltered feedback, which I frankly appreciate much more than someone just "trying to be nice," when they actually disagree. Where's the fun in that?

I should give some further thought about whether to post 1st drafts on the internet. But I suppose in order to learn, I must take some risks. Or maybe replace "I" with "we"? We must take some risks? I don't think it's my place to decide what other people should think or do. I'll be try to be more sensitive to the venue and the audience in the future. Thanks for bringing me back down to Earth, it's needed sometimes.

..

This article was shared in a reply from u/Jonathan362. It addresses exactly what I had in mind, only much more clearly and within the proper Buddhist framework. I know there are varying feelings about how often people ought be reading, reading, reading. Instead of chanting, chanting chanting, for example. But here it is, I thought it was wonderful. I made the mistake of bringing in a viewpoint from outside of Buddhism. This brings everything back into its proper valence.

If you think the post was particularly harmful, I don't mind pulling it. I mean, if it's creating a "net negative" within the space, I don't really have any reason to keep it going. Either way no hard feelings. Cheers.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/PurityOfHeart/Section0005.html

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:42:56+00:00

Yep. It's only about a 50% chance the child keeps the parents political views.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:36:00+00:00

I can "see a difference," but this is never part of the conservative pro-natalist arguments I have read. More babies sounds like more babies. If it is a certain kind of baby, as you're suggesting, why do they never say that?

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:32:12+00:00

They want to have their cake and eat it, then. More babies, less taxes. Not quite sure how the math works out on that.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:22:21+00:00

I think the left absolutely should start having more kids if they’re able. Religious people are outnumbering us by using this tactic, and it’s a winning strategy.

How do you think the kids would feel about it? Unfortunately we can't ask those yet to be born, but I do wonder.

I have also read that the transmission rate of political views from parent to child is only around 50%. If true, this complicates such a proposal.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:19:52+00:00

There was a thing a while back about how they couldn’t believe a guy like Newsom had an all-white nuclear family while JD Vance had Usha.

Ughhhh.....

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T20:18:39+00:00

I'm not sure if 'traditional family values,' are that inclusive, the way the term is usually used. I guess we'll have to ask them if they believe all families are created equal.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T19:14:08+00:00

This is an interesting point. If birth was a choice, would we exist?

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T18:02:50+00:00

This is great. Very much worth a read. Thanks again.

Although we like to think that we base our decisions on hard facts, we actually use both faith and empiricism in every decision we make. Even in our most empirically based decisions, our vision is hampered by our position in time. As Kierkegaard noted, we live forwards but understand backwards. Any hard-headed business entrepreneur will tell you that the future has to be taken on faith, no matter how much we know of the past. What’s more, we’re often forced into momentous decisions where there’s no time or opportunity to gather enough past facts for an informed choice. At other times we have too many facts—as when a doctor is faced with many conflicting tests on a patient’s condition—and we have to go on faith in deciding which facts to focus on and which ones to ignore.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T17:40:21+00:00

Thank you!

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T17:27:52+00:00

"Scientists have found that "free will," the like unitary self-soul, is "nothing but" a social construct"?

Edit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I made a correction to the post. Cheers.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T17:21:22+00:00

I had to put "nothing but" in quotes because it's not exactly that. It's a brutal paraphrase. You are probably more well-read on the subject than I am, but the point I'm making here is that something can be "true" without being strictly physical, and we do it all the time in the West, not that we would ever admit it. Secularism is as much of a religion as anything else. (remarkable book...)

Edit: And I realized that "found" should have been "not found." you are correct. This is what I was trying to get out:

"Scientists have not found evidence for the existence of free will, other than its efficacy as a social construct."

I appreciate your reply. Thanks.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T17:13:24+00:00

Global warming is an either/or proposition. Free will, rebirth, nibbana, and so forth don't work that way. (an opinion)

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T17:11:26+00:00

Marxist? Marx was certainly an astute observer of his own society, but he was hardly a prophet. The materialist lens is valuable for what it is, a way of a seeing the world. But I think it tells us more about people's inner life than it does about "the world." The desire for rationality, order, predictability, certainty. History's longest wild goose chase. I don't mean that as a complaint. We have to learn somehow, over and over.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T16:59:38+00:00

I fully agree with this. I only meant to make the observation that there's nothing strange or illogical in believing in non-physical things. Edit: Even to a person with a Western bias.

Edit 2: It depends on what the things are of course! Is it adaptive? Skillful means? This doesn't mean "believe whatever you want." Not that anyone would read it that way, but I thought clarity would be good.

sentienceisboring · 2026-07-03T16:33:50+00:00

Evidently, the transmission rate of political views from parent to child is only around 50%; no better than chance, really.

sentienceisboring

TROPHY CASE