View Full Version : The Limits of Belief.

05-18-2012, 11:30 PM
Perhaps I'm addressing the wrong crowd. Certainly, as it comes to presenting something fully-formed, ready-made and easy to swallow, this is the wrong place. Anywhere is the wrong place to present an idea in progress.

I have posted less and less as time has dragged on, barely stirring from lurking slumber to correct or 'props' my most lovely of peers. There are reasons for the lapse – a recent breakup, a packed schedule, a decreased engagement with the now-gone members of this forum I once identified as idealized (and admittedly flawed) contemporary intellectual benchmarks – but in the end it comes down to a particular form of apathy that I find it hard to deal with. I remain well accompanied here even to this day, but the engagement has flagged on a collective level.

The will to do nothing (always as opposed to having nothing to do) has always been strong in procrastinators and ne'er-do-wells of all stripes, but within every era of history it seems like the refusal to produce has represented a very specific engagement with and rejection of the zeitgeist, a quasi-utopian rejection that implied another potential future not built along the hierarchies that the dominant order has built for you.

“In this day and age,” if the phrase can be used, that sort of negative engagement seems stronger than ever. We face a generation of managers and accountants, none of whom produce a damned thing, attempting to engage with the material realities of their existence and finding them empty. Post-marxist as the suggestion might be, the technocratic mode of existence has seemingly created a class unlike any in history, one which is jaded with the origins of its own success and which regards the means of its maintenance as jejeune and downright dangerous. Engaged in the post-political managerial mode of thought, you end up with an emergent class suffused with privileged ennui, shot through with the will to think yet devoid of the will, and keenly feeling that moral lack.

Individuals are the unfortunate kings of their own destinies, and in the end accepting neo-liberal latter-day logics of a free-market utopia may seem logical to those benefitting from the exact logics of production existing in this particular age. At the same time, we find a disillusioned collective consciousness that despairs in the most of contemporary politics, seemingly unable to access the same mechanism for change that the civil rights movement or the women's rights crusade managed to tap. The world is broken, and despite our strains of thought determining a new and better world, the stale thoughts of our forebears animate the worlds within which we work. To change that doesn't just require a shift in thought – it requires a sudden takeover, and it is the technicalities of the newly dangerous non-productive revolutionary class that elude the definition of the future.

*Please note that the use of French and German keywords are meant to be a nod to the histories of the words rather than a claim at 'my God I'm a huge jackass and I know those words'

05-24-2012, 12:57 AM
Come again?

I suppose I should, and I should probably involve a confession while I do. All of the best 'comes' involve moments like that.

I've been thinking about ideas of political change recently, and it's been responsible for a lot of the thought I've been embarking on. The biggest problem for me has been the internalization of Lenin's problem - if the downtrodden classes can't mobilize themselves, why shouldn't we do it for them?

In that sense, I've been exploring the gap between the recognition of social ills and the action based towards those ills as essentially utopian thought. Praxis - the logic of work - versus criticism (the pointing out of weakness) is a fundamental building block of agency.

Maybe try re-reading the post, otherwise?

05-24-2012, 07:14 PM
This went over my head twice, like a boomerang.

05-25-2012, 09:11 AM
And over mine, thrice.

05-25-2012, 09:39 AM
You just posted something so pompous, pretentious and faggotted that even Maria disapproves. I think you are addressing the wrong crowd.

05-26-2012, 11:47 AM
Sometimes I get drunk. Sometimes I get really drunk.

05-26-2012, 01:28 PM
Tonight I'm gonna get really drunk and try to match with this. I probably will fail and come inadequate but I'll lay the blame on my drunkness.

05-27-2012, 06:41 PM
Yeah, I have a solid answer now if I face a question like "Who is the most vicious character ever portrayed in cinema?"- my answer won't be Joker, Vader, or I don't know, psychopathic No Country for Old Men guy, the crazy guy in Schindler's List that snipes Jews or the mad conquistador Aguirre..
My answer would be Chad, the average guy that has an average job, pretty much an average man you probably would have as a friend. What makes Chad the cruelest is are basically these characteristic features, he doesn't break the law, doesn't have unique physical qualities, doesn't overpower anyone. We have at least one Chad in our lives, maybe he's our boyfriend/girlfriend, maybe even spouse, or more hopefully he's just a person we encounter everyday, maybe a close friend. He's manipulative as fuck, he's a cold-hearted son of a bitch that enjoys abusing people around him mentally, violates them emotionally and he feels no remorse for the consequences of his actions. The point is should we keep him around if he's not harming us or people we care about, but we still know he's hurting vulnerable people out there, maybe even the ones we know? I don't know cause if we get rid of this one it's very likely we'll meet another Chad at later point no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Maybe even we become Chad's for certain people.

I didn't wanna make another thread for this, probably it wouldn't get more than 2-3 responses, still I wanted to deliver the promise I made, even one day later.

Degstur Lolland
05-28-2012, 09:15 AM
Cool story, bro, 5 stars. :d Sadly, it doesn't go over my head. :d You need to make it easier to read, add something about corruption and create an unemployed character named Chad. :D

05-28-2012, 10:14 AM
I think he should write about Dexter Holland's role in the War on Terror.

05-29-2012, 04:39 PM
T gets drunk and makes threads like this.

I get drunk and make threads like this (http://offspring.com/community/showthread.php?t=36928) and this (http://offspring.com/community/showthread.php?t=41280) and most of all, this (http://offspring.com/community/showthread.php?t=28694). Oh, oh. And this (http://offspring.com/community/showthread.php?t=27141).

Honestly, my drunk threads are substantially more awesome than my sober ones. I can conclude from this that I'm way more fun at a party than T. :cool:

05-29-2012, 08:48 PM
You'd be pretty much dead wrong on that count, I'm afraid, unless you are truly a party wizard. I am a hoot and a success.

It's when the party ends and I'm still drunk that I type some words into the text boxes.