/lit/ - Literature

>>12067771
>maybe thats the time you end up killing yourself in this hypothetical scenario
grim. my dream death is a gunfight in a bordello anyways. that's how i would prefer to Exit. gunfight in a bordello

>but if talking to npcs-npcifies you, imagine what its like to attend a philosophy class inevitably with group discussions, i wouldnt know what thats like i havent been there and for good reason
yup

but the thing is, we're all NPCs, basically, at some deep level. well, maybe not all of us. some people aren't. and that's really just my own criterion of success. it's not necessary to be amazing, it's enough to just not become a rage zombie. which is hard, when you feel yourself surrounded by them. i think about Nietzsche, who was so fucking refined he couldn't even live. and he had some truly cringe episodes as well. most of the great philosophers are confused and unhappy men also. Heidegger says and does some pretty galactically stupid things, but he's still a genius. Schopenhauer doesn't seem like he was all that much fun, alone with his poodle or telling everyone at the restaurants he went to how much of a genius he was. he was, but it's still unbecoming. Deleuze seems like he was a bro. the stories about Land are legendary, but he's mellowed out now.

the thing today is much more contradictory tho. the more people try to be different, the more they wind up sounding the same. the paradox of the NPC. the more you try for Authenticity, the more you wind up becoming a meme. there's no easy way to sort between NPCs and PCs, really. NPC is a better term than SJW, since it goes to both ends of the spectrum, but in the end we're pretty much all NPCs in some sense.

but i think i like this, my body is ready for this in some sense too. just being able to get along with people, anonymously and invisibly, and not needing to feel like i have some extra hidden part that makes me So Special. the most embarrassing of all Extra Hidden Parts to have is a posting history about continental philosophers a mile long. it is as >>12065856 says:

>2) radical normie acceptance
>6) never imbue malicious intent

this is completely correct. and fucking crazy hard also. but it is an absolutely perfect way to Exit the Wild Ride. schizoid behaviour, beyond a certain horizon, has a rapidly diminishing value. it is better by far to be able to get along with things, and not wind up rattling a tin cup and selling pencils with a sandwich board, no matter how interesting your manifesto is. paul laffoley managed to make something interesting happen with his imagination, that's a pretty good example. there is Outsider art, and Darger's is the supreme example. but in general the PC/NPC distinction is ultimately an illusory one i think. i say this, mainly, to myself, as a part of needing to fucking crowbar myself back into reality, and out the End of Time, where i have been happily ensconced for a while. because all good things must come to an end at some point.

>>10212130
might not be able to help it, crazy as that sounds

>>10212135
just ungrounded

>>10212313
ITT: intelligent and interesting posts

good shit anon

>>10212333
necessary evil would be my guess

>>10212355
>The philosopher is a time-traveler who arrives on the scene too late. Theory comes after the event. The event-makers are superior to the theoreticians. But the theoreticians have more job security.

love this post so hard

>>10212360
aye, thank ye sir

>>10212369
>Can we say that metonymy is a symbol and metaphor is an analogy?

i'm not sure. metonymy/metaphor just to me aligns more with deleuze's aion/chronos distinction. yes, we can do psychedelics and sort of venture for a while into schizophrenia - or, for that matter, just have crazy deep REM sleep and dream our balls off - but all of this stuff fades upon waking consciousness. which is - or so it seems to me - a world in which we have to confront the fact that all is mimesis rather than transcendental meaning...

we basically can't derive our concepts of the norm from *anything* - and this is perhaps another aspect of a planetary cyberneticism that does not require it. maybe only intelligence is the norm, or maybe it is because we are having, with Turing-as-Copernicus, another great turn of the world-historical screw...things make more sense and less sense at the same time. everything becoming more and more intelligible, perhaps only intelligible to itself...

...neither baudrillard nor mcluhan were wrong about the semiological explosion (or 'semantic apocalypse.'). but baudrillard had nietzsche and marx to fall back on, and mcluhan had the church. i sound the way that i do, perhaps, because i'm a stranger to both of those things...and just trying to find stability through mimesis and theory alone is like falling backwards into space...

...but maybe this is a historical epoch, and a turn into a much Colder world, a strange new era of cognition that we have never seen before...and the more we try to understand it, the more remote it seems to become...

...it seems to me you have to let go of politics to deal with philosophy, but what presents itself to you as such is so fucking huge you just lose all sense of perspective...without something to criticize, to be transcendental miserabilists about, we have no fucking idea who we are...

...at the end of time the revolutionaries discover, perhaps, their obsolescence...not because any doors are closed to them, but because all of them are open...