Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I've heard about this, it's fucking terrifying. It's not even as if smoking impairs your ability to work while you're 'under the influence' of it! - let alone if you smoke in your own home on your time. Absolute idiocy.
S M O K I N G
- Thread starter hundredmillionlifetimes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bongmitzvah plumes
I've heard about this, it's fucking terrifying. It's not even as if smoking impairs your ability to work while you're 'under the influence' of it! - let alone if you smoke in your own home on your time. Absolute idiocy.
you are giving capitalism WAY too much credit. it is a very recent, and will prove to be a very brief, way of life for humans.
not only is there a way "out", all there is is "out". and it is only illusion that you are trapped "inside".
swears
preppy-kei
Gek:
The idea of somebody going out into the wilderness and living off the land, without relying on any products or services from the state or businesses, not paying taxes, not consuming anything except what they produce or find themselves, you don't think there's any merit in that at all? OK, you're not helping to change the current system, but you're contributing anything to it either.
The new Sean Penn film deals with this idea, looks a bit sentimental tho...
The idea of somebody going out into the wilderness and living off the land, without relying on any products or services from the state or businesses, not paying taxes, not consuming anything except what they produce or find themselves, you don't think there's any merit in that at all? OK, you're not helping to change the current system, but you're contributing anything to it either.
The new Sean Penn film deals with this idea, looks a bit sentimental tho...
There is no "natural state"! The idea has an appeal in a similar way to becoming a smack head, it is seductive but is an abnegation of responsibility, to be honest suicide is more attractive than both...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Or equivalently, every state is natural, be it that of an Inuit fisherman or a Wall Street trader.
I think 'nature'/the 'natural' is one of the most abused and misinterpreted ideas of the last hundred years.
Yes.
N
nomadologist
Guest
It's been kicking around in one stupid form or another since the Greeks wrote all those philosophical texts...
N
nomadologist
Guest
Yes.
This was a productive discussion then!
N
nomadologist
Guest
You could say the same of most drugs!
:^u
:^u
N
nomadologist
Guest
Health is not a set of relations between a subject and itself in any sense of either term!
Also, capitalism doesn't tell us to be unhealthy, it tells us to be "healthy"--"healthy" in the sense of being completely without any physical or psychological diseases or viruses, infections, etc. This notion of health is not a "natural" state-- in nature it is vital that organisms create antibodies to viruses and diseases are an inevitability, not a physical weakness or downfall. This is why no one is ever considered healthy anymore, because our indicators of unhealthiness are so off. You aren't a bad person and you haven't done anything wrong if you get a disease. This is one of capitalism's lies. Capitalism tells you that IF YOU JUST MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES [in the marketplace of goods, of desire, of whatever's out there] you can attain health, which is in this system a state of being that is heirarchically better or more "natural" than unhealthiness.
The sad fact of the matter about nature is that it tends toward disorder, it tends to decay, things fall apart, people die of cancer. We will not cheat death by putting people on respirators who are nominally considered alive by the skin of a few brain waves on an EEG. We end up extending death so that all we do is die.
Capitalism has commodified everything, so that even being healthy is an object. Addiction is one of the many things capitalism has successfully used to perpetrate itself on the world, but addiction would still be here without capitalism, unfortunately. Capitalism used addiction and the whole mechanism of psychological addiction as a blueprint for its entire social dynamic strategy.
P.S. An interesting thing my mom's OB/GYN just said to her about menopause: congratulations, you're part of a generation that has outlived its own ovaries. Something to think about, human evolution and whether we've really "progressed" ...
Precisely. Well consumerism anyway has internalised, metastasized... not just addiction, but the root process of metabolic reactivity, that solipsistic observation of incremental internalised affect...
That's why we must learn primarily to give up on the idea of "health" (definitely needs the quotation marks!)
(Nietzsche 1882)
The endless extension of life is grotesque on multiple levels tho naturally indicative of the endlessly inventive drive of capital to find new revenue streams...
N
nomadologist
Guest
I don't think there's such a thing as "false-consciousness" with relation to desire--i.e. you can't simply decide to not-desire things, and the things you desire are not a sort of false consciousess. Think of that food example someone brought up, can't remember who...
EDIT: This was meant as a response to both you and the quote of Noel's you were responding to in this post--some reason it didn't get quoted along with your statement...
Last edited:
N
nomadologist
Guest
"Nature" is a highly culturally determined notion and as such always already problematic.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Yes, it is strange to me that those who believe that the way out is through getting more "in touch" with the subject as a pre-capitalist/pre-political entity that has some sort of "essence" that they are calling nature are ironically appealing to the exact same bogus notions of "nature" and "health" that capitalism has ceaselessly perpetrated on the world.
But: Desire is manipulable, and you can certainly choose not to expose yourself to things which might induce a desire... whilst there is no "pure" desire which can be satisfied unlike all those impure desires implanted into our minds by hegemonic forces... It is probably possible to limit the range of desires.
Problem being the desire for desire?