SirKlingoftheDrains [he/him]

  • 1 Post
  • 20 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 28th, 2020

help-circle




  • The extended substance to Descartes is broadly the material, whereas the thinking or res cogitans is the thinking substance. How to bridge the immaterial mentality of thinking as a causal force in the material presented a problem for him and was difficult to bridge in this conceptualization of the full human: the mind body problem. The split subject in Lacanian psychoanalysis refers to in part the “mirror stage” of psychological development, where the undeveloped infant first sees it’s own image in a mirror and begins to recognize it’s own incomplete self image (only seeing of itself without the mirror its legs, arms, perceiving its clumsy motor skills, etc) compared to the ideal subject reflected in the perceived-to-be complete “other” in the mirror, which is not first recognized as itself but an ideal form which seems to be superior and complete in comparison. This is furthered by the imposition of language or in Lacanian terms “castration” which is essentially the imposition of a defining, limiting, prohibitive symbolic structure by way of language which creates a separating or splitting of the self independent of the flesh and blood, now extant in the symbolic and signified sense. There can be no unification of the split self, which is the underlying source of the neurotic or psychotic, with the former responding to castration with repression and the latter responding with a complete rejection of the prohibitions circumscribed therein. This is a vulgar understanding but how I interpret it.




  • I will read this article as soon as I get a chance, but as with all of these intelligence operations, it can take to the form of a motley crue of fascists coming from different places and with different priorities and collapsing certain ambitions together for mutual aim, in this case, the killing of Palme. Stig Larsson, the novelist, was in a unique position in his job at a Stockholm newspaper at the time, to track leads and try an assemble a cohesive story in the aftermath of the assassination. He became obsessed, and continued personal research on the subject up to his own death. He amassed a personal archive of information on the case, uncovering new evidence, following leads that the media and police failed to take interest in. After his death, the person who acquired his personal storage unit acquired this archive, and set to the task of trying to make sense of the work, and follow up on the leads where they had been left off. The BBC made a documentary about this investigator and his conclusions after years of pouring over the documents and furthering the investigation, and he is pretty convinced it was elements of apartheid South Africa that oversaw the ground operation, of course in consort with the CIA and other actors within Sweden with connections to police, militias, and intelligence. So calling the US nazis for what they did in Vietnam and calling out the racist apartheid project for what it is, even as a moderate social democrat, is enough to get you offed if you do it in earnest on the world stage.

    As much as I love Ghost Stories for the End of the World, I felt there was not sufficient exploration of this well-documented line of inquiry, and barely a passing mention of Stig’s work on the matter. After listening to that, I was left with the impression that the Stig Engstrom (lotta stigs) lone gunman theory was seemingly as alluring or viable an explanation as anything else. Even if this is not the case that others were left with this impression, I was a little confused as to why such a (typically) rigorously researched show failed to explore this further. I suspect that Matt, the host, was taking a little of a well-earned break after doing the Octopus series, and handing over the reigns of research to others, taking more the role of interviewer for this series. Anyhow, thank you for linking the article.









  • DECIDE, v.i. To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.

    A leaf was riven from a tree,
    “I mean to fall to earth,” said he.

    The west wind, rising, made him veer.
    “Eastward,” said he, “I now shall steer.”

    The east wind rose with greater force.
    Said he: “'Twere wise to change my course.”

    With equal power they contend.
    He said: "My judgment I suspend. "

    Down died the winds; the leaf, elate,
    Cried: “I’ve decided to fall straight.”

    “First thoughts are best?” That’s not the moral;
    Just choose your own and we’ll not quarrel.

    Howe’er your choice may chance to fall,
    You’ll have no hand in it at all. —G.J.

    Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary


  • For a video about recognizing the ways in which unrealistic or misinformed cultural ideas of attractiveness and masculinity are a huge component in the rise of the incel, black and otherwise, this presenter sure likes to hammer that balding is unattractive. He says “it’s fine to be bald” like one time but all of the context clues and intended humor suggest that he is entirely aware that this is widely viewed negatively in the domain of attractiveness and is using it in the demeaning sense. And then just does the same intended-to-demean joke like three times. Big dicks, giga chads, bald shaming, these are all things I see embraced in left spaces which then hand wring about the negative and toxic forms of masculinity and the ways in which they are reified in culture. I am not singling out this mostly decent and well-intended video as the sole or worst offender, but just another example of doing the thing you say you are against.