Corpsey

bandz ahoy
It honestly was fascinating to me how liberated I felt under a different name - even though I knew that everyone knew it was me!

Yeats had first mentioned the value of masks in 1910 in a simple poem, "The Mask," where a woman reminds her lover that his interest in her depends on her guise and not on her hidden, inner self. Yeats gave eloquent expression to this idea of the mask in a group of essays, Per Amica Silentia Lunae (1918): "I think all happiness depends on the energy to assume the mask of some other life, on a re-birth as something not one's self." This notion can be found in a wide variety of Yeats's poems.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/william-butler-yeats
 

luka

Well-known member
I can't see why the sub forums would stop anyone from actively engaging in discussion or actually making an effort, from being thoughtful, intelligent, interesting etc. taking trouble with words and ideas. Seems irrelevant.
 

version

Well-known member
I think chucking a few together would get things moving a bit more, you'd have a few topics occupying the same space so you'd get more threads being made rather than having the odd one dotted across a few less active sub forums.
 

luka

Well-known member
As I said at the beginning of this thread I don't think more threads do anything but diffuse the energy and distract attention encouraging flipness, casualness and superficiality. I wouldn't want to ban threads like
What's your favourite autechre album but I don't think they're a sign of health necessarily. It's just have another slice of cake, ooh, I mustn't thank you no type conversation ultimately. Perched on the edge of the sofa on your best behaviour.

One or two active threads at any given time is plenty provided they can sustain interest and engagement.

But of course what people actually want and need might differ. It's hard to say. My assumption is everyone wants something to get their teeth into but I might be completely wrong. Barty says he wants substantive discussion but if no one else does then it's tough luck Barty isn't it. No dice.
 

luka

Well-known member
Equally we might all have such different notions of what substantive discussion consists of, such different ideas of fun, that it's all doomed to failure from the start. But I don't think so cos things do happen sometimes, and granted, as patty says, you can't force it, but equally you can't expect it to appear spontaneously out of mid air. Some intent and direction is necessary.
 

version

Well-known member
I've noticed that it tends to be better during the week, presumably because people are at work and cooped up in offices on computers.
 

droid

Well-known member
I can't see why the sub forums would stop anyone from actively engaging in discussion or actually making an effort, from being thoughtful, intelligent, interesting etc. taking trouble with words and ideas. Seems irrelevant.

Its more about engaging new people I guess.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
There's nothing wrong with that. We're trying to find what works. Rushing round trying to make Barty happy and fulfilled.


I love barty's contrarianism to thah bone but it's like alchemy innit, you have to write the recipe first. you can't make spicey food for the sake of spice, this is why most english curries utterly fail. you have to season the contrarianism, make it succulant. that's why i am telling him to listen to less helter skelter and dreamscape (even awol) and more london pirate radio. radio is where the magic is at.
 

luka

Well-known member
He'll say he's hanging out the back of some bosomy Bermondsey beauty with a filthy mouth and pink Timbalands but really he's in a strop and he's not going to come back till we prove we can provide substantive discussion. So stressful, I'm getting performance anxiety.
 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
until recently i’d just assumed we all wanted the same thing and all that was required was a few presentational tweaks. the thinking was everyone would get involved if i could just find the right topic/ limit the jokes/ get this specific person going/be more encouraging/etc.

luke it’s time to admit it’s game over. they genuinely don’t want what we want.

i’d say the split is largely down to whether you’re interested in generating new ideas or not. me and you come on dissensus wanting to come up with new bodies of thought or to frame things in a way we’ve never encountered before. it’s only very recently that i’ve realised that dissensians by and large aren’t coming here to do that.

where we’re generative, they’re referential. 'listen to this bit of music'. 'read this quote'. 'i’ve read this book’. ‘watch this film’. ’this article’s good’. usually there’ll be a small value judgement attached or a brief comment- ‘i like/don’t like x because of y’- which is completely fine of course, but it isn’t what we’re ultimately after.




my dream was that there’d be a topic broad enough not to alienate anyone and then each poster would come in with there perspective:


luke would come and say it mirrors the dmt experience in the following ways...

leo would say it reflects the authoritarianism of the trump age in the following ways...

version would say that it reminds of him of this internet thing because of…

craner would say it has a faux-demure sexuality to it by way of…

blissblog would talk about '1983 a merman i’ll be' and strumming one out to steflon don

etc.


these ideas would interact and coalesce. corpsey would say that the hallucinogenic information signals luke’s talking about evoke authoritarianisms fetishisation of order which leo was talking about. then links would be drawn between the despot-chic of trump and gaddafi with the crass sexuality craner was talking about. and on it would go, snowballing.


alas, the dream is over…



 

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
one thing that would make things better (even if it's only going to be a few of us actually involved in discussions) is to move away from binary debate formats. there seems to be a subconscious process in which threads are turned into a battle between 'yes' and 'no'. they'd be more fun things were more collaborative, building on each others ideas or coming at them from slightly different angles and reframing them.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
one thing that would make things better (even if it's only going to be a few of us actually involved in discussions) is to move away from binary debate formats. there seems to be a subconscious process in which threads are turned into a battle between 'yes' and 'no'. they'd be more fun things were more collaborative, building on each others ideas or coming at them from slightly different angles and reframing them.


i agree.
 
Top