/lit/ - Literature

>>16836904
Unoriginal thought

Not really; consumption is not limited to the audiovisual medium, in the same way that sublimation is not limited to the literary medium --preference for either, or both, is contingent on one's personality; the creator of that image was biased, and/or myopic.

One should strive to express via creation as much, if not more, than what one sublimates via impression, regardless of medium, lest one's mind become flooded with information, and one's psykhe swamped with data, precluding sublimative preciation with gluttonous consumption.

>>9667281
You're really not wrong. Pic related is me.

Not indifferent. I'm more hypnotized, equal parts terror and fascination. Land broke the dial off that kind of hypnosis. Nobody seems to really have the final answer vis-a-vis capitalism. It involves too many complicated moving parts and too large a timeframe. Or, in a sense, lots of people have answers: Kant/Rand/Marx/Heidegger/Bozo the Clown/insert here. But no totalizing argument, imho, stands up completely. They all kind of swim around in the same pond. Lots of overlapping theories and no final or definitive answers - just things going on in human nature from one end to the other. Like a stadium-sized game of rock-scissors-paper without beginning or end. Everything connects to everything else. Hence the Deleuze interest.

So it's a kind of a learned uncertainty...indistinguishable from stupidity...which it actually is...but I *know* it's stupidity...rock, scissors, paper. I'm baffled by it, and I really don't intend to give the impression that I have any answers (as, I'm sure, I don't).

There will be a blog-containment mechanism for this weirdness soon. So definitely not indifferent. Mesmerized trending towards awe and delirium, fishing for interesting answers. /lit/ delivers more often than not, too.