Has anyone actually refuted him [spoiler]or Ellul[/spoiler]? I read Industrial Society and its Future and can't work my way out of his conclusions. [spoiler]guys help im scared[/spoiler]

File: 96 KB, 630x630, ted bad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:37:12 2018 No.11988491 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone actually refuted him or Ellul? I read Industrial Society and its Future and can't work my way out of his conclusions.

guys help im scared

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:46:44 2018 No.11988531 We should have listened

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:49:31 2018 No.11988545 Of course not since most of the criticism of is dude don't be a luddite lmao or he was just an incel lmao.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:52:31 2018 No.11988558 http://www.prole.info/texts/civilization.html Not anti-ted specifically but anti-prim

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:57:28 2018 No.11988581

Technology is not an issue. The abuse thereof, however, is. It is the fundamental part of human nature to devise a way towards abusing boons and benefits wrought by a sincere desire for betterment of our condition. Thus, I do not believe technology or technological advance in itself is a wrong course, but rather, it's availability to the general mass.

Take for example, the gift of a smartphone device. A mere one, with a size of an average palm, can store in itself countless libraries, all at your disposal and benefit.

Yet in the hands of your average citizen, it will find use for a dating app, social networking, and all manners of short-termed, immediate gratification pursuit, which in itself is abuse and destruction of potential.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 19:59:23 2018 No.11988584 >>11988581 Unironic strawman

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:02:23 2018 No.11988592

>>11988491
Ted is right, and that's the end of it.
He also doesn't idealize the primitive lifestyle, there are no claims that we'd enjoy living primitive lives more than the lives we have now. His argument is that going primitive is the only way to avoid utter domination and slavery at the hands of technologically augmented social/political/whatever systems.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:02:44 2018 No.11988593 What is there to refute? He only points out what the engineers of civilization have always known, and wanted, since civilization's inception. Everything he "warns" against is literally what civilization was built for.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:05:44 2018 No.11988605 >>11988593 low-iq post

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:07:58 2018 No.11988614 >>11988605 Yeah? Have fun continuing to get railroaded by civilization, because it's not ending any time soon. Freedom is a condition of the heart. Ted's "freedom" is boring, and you don't understand what freedom is at all if you think he's "right."

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:09:18 2018 No.11988619 >>11988614 I don't think ted's right I just think you're a moron. "engineers of civilization" lmao waiting for you to unironically claim it was da joos

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:11:31 2018 No.11988622 File: 9 KB, 205x246, 456345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11988584 >m-m-m-muh fallacy >look mom, i-i called it a fallacy!11

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:14:34 2018 No.11988635 >>11988619 Civilization didn't just happen to people. People made it happen. Jews were a part of that process, too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:15:42 2018 No.11988637 Ted was an excellent mathematician. When he given a set of assumptions, he can give back the best possible solutions. The crux of any argument against Ted starts with discrediting his assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:17:31 2018 No.11988647 >>11988622 Normally I'd agree but you're literally arguing against something he didn't say

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:18:33 2018 No.11988652 >>11988637 >was He's still alive anon

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:23:21 2018 No.11988665

>>11988647
Ted very clearly elaborates the the only hope to preserve the human freedom is by tearing out element of technological advance from the foundations of society, not via reformist methods, but those revolutionary, violent or not.

The stance I personally hold and present is that reform is able of sustaining the said freedoms, whereas Ted would offer a skeptic position by claiming that any sort of reform or as he calls it "compromise", is a short-termed solution and will inevitably break down.
There is no strawman presented if you have any idea whatsoever as to what he has wrote about.

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:23:38 2018 No.11988669

How does Ted feel about the Amish? Has he written anything about them? They seem to have more or less limited their use of technology to the tools and conveniences that can be self-replicated in a decentralized, autonomous community without the need for distant markets and material processing. Is Ted fine with that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:27:37 2018 No.11988682 File: 58 KB, 636x674, 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11988665 >human freedom Imagine being this spooked

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:31:19 2018 No.11988694 >>11988614 ok i'll bite what is "freedom?"

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:35:25 2018 No.11988712

>>11988694
You don't know what "a condition of the heart" means? It means freedom is a feeling. One feels one is free when the right conditions are met. The exact conditions depend on you, but they boil down to whether you are in control of your environment or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 20:38:16 2018 No.11988725 Uncle Ted was right which is why they had to take him out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 21:08:52 2018 No.11988836 >>11988712 You seem to contradict yourself. You say that freedom is a feeling but also define it as something that exists based on your material circumstances. These two can be independent of each other. You can feel free but, in reality, be a slave.

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 21:26:45 2018 No.11988888

>>11988836
Emotions are psychologically driven, and psychology is understood based on one's behavior towards others. Freedom is an emotion, and like all emotions, they are based on your relationship with things. Every emotion is triggered by another thing and directed towards another thing. There's no contradiction there as long as you understand that.

>You can feel free but, in reality, be a slave.
Slavery is also a condition of the heart though, because it is a function of freedom. It is the sensation of the lack of freedom. If freedom is an emotion, the lack thereof is also an emotion. What I'm getting at here is that there is no reality outside of how we feel; our reality itself is a condition of our heart.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 22:16:46 2018 No.11989070 >>11988581 dating apps and jerking off to 16 year olds on tiktok is just another step towards BwO

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 22:57:27 2018 No.11989214 File: 328 KB, 655x1000, 1540247213774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >he thinks proofs and refutations are real

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 22:59:54 2018 No.11989229 >>11988725 He is alive, his ideas flourish, he is yet capable of being communicated with, and has written further work expounding his views. If they wanted to "take him out", then they've done a piss-poor job of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:00:29 2018 No.11989230 >>11988652 >implying

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:12:58 2018 No.11989282

>>11988888
There is a reality beyond our feelings. Have you never felt like there is nothing you can do about something, only to later realize a possibility you hadn't thought of? You felt like there was no possible solution, but in reality there was one.
Our experience of the world is heavily inflected by "the heart," as you put it, but to say that there is no reality beyond that is utter nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:13:55 2018 No.11989285 >>11989070 Based world order?

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:14:47 2018 No.11989289
File: 36 KB, 600x450, 716BECDF-9657-48EB-A219-73E746B25044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11988593
This post is correct. Ted is incredibly insightful in the workings of civilization, but fails to realize that the consequences he points out are not a failure of social structures, but the purpose of them. Ted fails to express in his works how his ideal of “freedom” is in any way connected to the power process. To accomplish individual power and overcome personal obstacles has nothing to do with the political consequences of technology, much less the restrictions imposed on “liberty” by it. It seems obvious, thus, that overcoming the implicit chaos of liberal ideals is the best way to rid society of the desire for false freedom, and turn its efforts into projects and goals centered on the personal, not the political.

Teddy unfortunately seems to be very connected to American mythology, and thus hesitates in admiting that authority and consolidation of power is the only real goal of civilization. However, the unstoppable power of economic progress will, inevitably, bring about absolute power. The issue really is how to direct such power in order to facilitate individual satisfaction, instead of the current project of social satisfaction in the form of hyper socialization, mainly a byproduct of the democratic experience

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:25:32 2018 No.11989330

>>11989282
>Have you never felt like there is nothing you can do about something, only to later realize a possibility you hadn't thought of? You felt like there was no possible solution, but in reality there was one.
There is something very disingenuous about this interpretation though. The "realization" only happened because you felt a certain way before it — i.e., it was a feeling produced by your prior feeling. The feeling doesn't at all demonstrate that there is a reality beyond our feelings; it actually makes a case for my argument rather than yours. And my conclusion here is basically what the conclusion of Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation was, which he cleverly summarized in the opening quote attributed to Ecclesiastes (despite it not actually being from Ecclesiastes):

>The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.

To say that there is no reality beyond the heart is simply me being honest. Whatever "reality" is beyond it, I can't know of, speak of, or even think of.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:30:40 2018 No.11989349 >>11989229 Could I write him a letter and would he be able to write back?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:33:51 2018 No.11989356 >>11989349 Yes. I'm told he answers letters,

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:39:49 2018 No.11989385 >Thinking was a mistake.

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:44:05 2018 No.11989400
File: 1.15 MB, 1239x1758, 1524780131798.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11989349

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. He's got nothing better to do so you're quite likely to get a reply, with the authorities having screened both communications. I don't actually recommend doing this however, as you'll be on an elevated watchlist of some sort for the rest of your days (Consider also that an extremely high-profile mail-bombing case is now in the news, so the timing would be extremely bad, even worse than usual).

He seems polite enough in letters to those who approach him courteously, but he has a sort of canned response, when asked about math at least: math sucks because it can be used to further technology so don't do it, instead, read my political stuff. At least he's sticking to his guns, as it were. Finally, even though mailpieces are of course checked going in and out, it is still naturally foolish/funny/ironic, to wish to exchange mailpieces with a guy whose biggest claim to fame was successfully mailing explosive mailpieces to recipients over many years.

But y'know, if you want to be on an elevated list just to come to possess a stock response letter from K, be my guest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:45:31 2018 No.11989407 >>11989330 Not having access to objective reality =/= objective reality not existing.

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:49:42 2018 No.11989421

>>11989407
Sure. However, having no way of interacting with "objective reality" means:

>there is no way to prove that it exists or doesn't exist
>there is no way to demonstrate that it affects us in any way
>there is no case that can be made against the assertion that it is the least relevant thing in the world to us without being disingenuous

Ergo, defining "freedom" or any concept whatever in light of an "objective reality" is disingenuous, always. Which means there is an ulterior motive behind doing so.

Anonymous Thu Oct 25 23:58:11 2018 No.11989444

>>11989421
If anything is the case, there is an objective reality. Anything that happens to us must necessarily be a result of how reality is. That anyone has any experiences whatsoever is proof enough that there is something rather than nothing. Is it merely subjectively true that you are having an experience of reading these words? What would that even mean?

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 00:05:58 2018 No.11989469

>>11989444
>If anything is the case, there is an objective reality. Anything that happens to us must necessarily be a result of how reality is. That anyone has any experiences whatsoever is proof enough that there is something rather than nothing.
Well, that's your feeling. But you can't prove it to be the case. What we can see, think about, and consequently work with, however, is our feelings, and how they shape our reality: how they ARE our reality. Thought itself is feeling; Nietzsche had it right when he called thought

>...the shadows of our feelings — always darker, emptier, and simpler.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 00:23:41 2018 No.11989545
File: 301 KB, 1050x700, forest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He literally can't be refuted because any problems people have in our society are ultimately sustained by modern infrastructure. Most of the urban population would die very quickly if modern infrastructure collapsed, so your existence depends on technology, ergo all your problems ultimately depend on technology. Therefore Ted's ideology is not a solution to all potential problems in life, but is simply an alternative to the extremely "caged-in" nature of modern industrial infrastructure - we're born in a world full of things we don't understand, chemicals that are modifying our bodies, we feel trapped. Anarcho-primitivism is mental escapism. It's actually very autistic in this sense and I can see why a mathematician came up with it. It's like a society constructed from basic axioms - everyone knows what a spear does, what a knife does, etc. It's an orderly, axiomatic therapy for life. It is perfect, forever, by nature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 00:27:47 2018 No.11989562 >>11989469 What we can see, think about, and consequently work with, however, is our feelings, and how they shape our reality: how they ARE our reality. Well, that's your feeling. But you can't prove it to be the case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 00:30:17 2018 No.11989572 >>11989562 Feelings don't need "proof." They're whole in themselves. They are their own proofs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 08:23:45 2018 No.11990540 foucault BTFOs both primitivists and futurists imo the "power process" decides the speed of technological growth, the social mechanism that control not only interaction but also politics

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 08:36:26 2018 No.11990557 File: 51 KB, 728x608, 1532416404427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11990540 >reading foucault

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 09:32:51 2018 No.11990692 >>11989545 I really think it's just a case of technology advancing far quicker than humans themselves All we've really done is create more and more tools that allow our still primitive minds to be more destructive

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:08:51 2018 No.11991035

>>11988491
No, you can not. What Kaczynski and Ellul simply do is point out how the logic of Technological progress that strives for more effeciency eventually has to be applied to humans too to maintain progress. Just as capital the logic of capital desires to make everything profitable and into a commodity. The Technological system it's logic progresses to more effeciency and natural biological humans pose a bottleneck to this. So to pass it we need to make humans more effecient by improving humans and make them operate more systematic.

Deluded People think we still have free agency as transhumans in the future but free agency allows conflict of interest to happen Wich is counterproductive to the overall effeciency of the Technological system. Changing humans in such a way to think in a hivemind super intelligent fashion would be more desirable and prevent useless conflicts. Kaczynski doesn't like this as this process will cost us our free agency/freedom and sense of diginity.

This logic is called Technique
"Technique is the totality of methods, rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity.”

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:25:03 2018 No.11991077
File: 151 KB, 568x568, YouBetrayedCat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

To refute him you need to understand him, to understand him you require to understand his theory well enough. And in my constant observation of these threads I've came to the conclusion that many are not able to critique as they are lack the necessary knowledge to properly adress him. Therefore everyone simply "imagins" what he means and critique this imagination they have of what Kaczynski says. Wich is a far more easier done then doing a long period of study of his theory wich requires lots of time and energy. And if your purpose is simply critique then you highly likely lack this commitment. It's a general trend in the nature of (idealogical?) critique Wich I think max Stirner explores.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:28:43 2018 No.11991086

>>11991077
Enlighten us all then, you sniveling fuckwit. Instead of adding something productive to the conversation at hand, you've instead chosen to criticize the apparently flawed understanding of others, instead of putting your own upon the table in form of argumentation. Pseuds like you, on your high and mighty horses are what's ruining this board.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:37:50 2018 No.11991113 >>11988581 He explains how it is impossible to use tech rationally in anti-tech revolution.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:42:52 2018 No.11991125 >>11990557 E.Micheal Jones exposed Foucault's deal with the devil.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:45:36 2018 No.11991131

>>11991086
The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. In previous threads I've done that shit alot but eventually you just realize with the constant *making shit up* that people do you just quit as it's a waste of time with non stop repetition of ignorant interpitations based on insufficient knowledge. You get it everywhere, Marx threads has it too for example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:47:29 2018 No.11991137 >>11991131 Are you such a brainlet you argue to convince the other person or "win" and not to influence third parties?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 11:54:55 2018 No.11991154 >>11991137 No, im just not autistic enough to invest my time and energy on it in non stop repetition on a Chinese gambling forum. Only just pointed out a flaw in the Nature of critique itself I see appearing everywhere around thinkers.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:00:56 2018 No.11991169
File: 9 KB, 294x171, platinum club members.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11991154
>on a Chinese gambling forum.
Regurgitating trendy 4chan vernacular is anathema to anyone worth talking to here, it's no wonder people keep treating you like the fools you've gotten fed up with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:03:04 2018 No.11991179 >>11991169 Whatever you imagin in your head to make yourself feel better anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:03:42 2018 No.11991181 >>11991179 >whatever helps you sleep at night lol GG easy

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:06:26 2018 No.11991193

>>11991035
>free agency allows conflict of interest to happen Wich is counterproductive to the overall effeciency of the Technological system
It's counterproductive to the overall efficiency of ANY system, not just technological ones. But this is also a bit wrong, because no system is perfect, and all systems are innovated on via conflict, and all wise systems engineers know this. Which is why I fail to see his point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:08:31 2018 No.11991200 >>11989285 Bodies without organs*

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:17:27 2018 No.11991240 >>11991193 >all systems are innovated on via conflict In the systems itself or conflict between systems to determine Wich is more efficient?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:23:10 2018 No.11991259 File: 74 KB, 1600x900, Heraclitus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11991240 Conflict between systems, which leads to a race towards innovation and results in natural selection.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:34:38 2018 No.11991287

>>11991259
Ohyeah off course, but this conflict is thriving to effeciency Wich is the logic of technique. For Kaczynski and Ellul they say that the problem of the Technological system is that our current way of human organization must eventually be outcompeted with a more effecient form of human organization Wich requires the improvement of humans.

151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifYing human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:36:58 2018 No.11991294

>>11991287
143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human narure has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of socictyP51 144.1hus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings.

And this is in contradiction with "freedom" and "dignity" Wich Ellul and Ted value.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:38:43 2018 No.11991307

Are we really losing our freedom through technology?
In previous societies you still had alot of obligations to everyone around you, the choice to live for yourself in the woods was just as wierd and wrong as it is today.

Disconnecting from society, that's how heroes and hermits and autists are born, that's still an option that is just as open.

Before we had Radios, before we had factories and massive corporations, we still had all sorts of pressures from everywhere around us.
We had to avenge our fathers, or live in social castes, or marry to whom others chose.

I think Ted's real insights are questions:
Are we living less authentically now?, because society "expanded"?
Are "surrogate activities" really worse than living for your own next meal?

His anaylsis of leftists is great IMO.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:41:40 2018 No.11991318

>>11991294
The last part of paragraph 144 mentions the competition between systems.

...so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society. [25]

[25] We don't mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That certainly is not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than European society did, bur European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:46:15 2018 No.11991334

>>11991307
I believe the crux of the argument can be boiled down to the fact, that people are living less authentically and are generally less content when offered complacency and comfort via advanced technology.

Interestingly enough, his critique of leftists can be easily applied to almost each and every group bound to a radical, heavily dogmatic and extreme ideal, regardless of the spectrum or politics alltogether.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:47:44 2018 No.11991339 >>11989545 Ted's not AnPrim though https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 12:52:52 2018 No.11991356

>>11991318
*143

>>11991307
It depends on your definition of freedom, Ted his definition of freedom is this.

Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

Kaczynski his sense of freedom is very (materialistic?) Individualist Anarchist orientated. So not a liberal or communist sense of freedom or autonomy.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 13:07:42 2018 No.11991400

>>11991356
What I'm getting at is I think Kaczynski didn't take into consideration (from what I remember) the intense pressure society puts in every stage of development.

So, you live in a modern society with bureaucracy, which is rational, organized and seen, but in a tribal society you have tribes, families that create a massive web of relations that you HAVE to take into consideration to succeed (or atleast not get your head chopped off).
Not to mention his essay about primitivism, and his fun descriptions of how shitty it can really be.

What I didn't take into consideration is the transhumanism that he talked about, which is important, but getting into the whole human agency discussion is beyond this thread. I'm just trying to talk about something people don't often bring up when talking about Kaczynski.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 13:11:09 2018 No.11991407 >>11991334 I've recently started looking into people like B F Skinner and all sorts of technocratic "scientocratic" movements and my god is it Evil when looking at it through the Kaczynski lens

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 13:55:54 2018 No.11991559

>>>11990557
nigger Foucault and Ellul state the same thing concerning the technification of punishment.
Plebs really shouldn't be able to read

>>11990557
you are literally mentally ill. being politicized = mental illness. right, left whatever, same disease

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 15:08:42 2018 No.11991847 >>11991334 lol go back to /v/ centrist

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 15:12:55 2018 No.11991865 >>11991559 Foucault is a depraved faggot who made a deal that the left would not to criticize the system (economic aspect in particular) in exchange for unmitigated sexual libertineism. He's a controlled pop-philosopher of the highest order.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 15:27:22 2018 No.11991937

>>11991865
>AIDS ridden faggot who took LSD in san francisco gay clubs in the 60s
Who else do you expect to write about power and liberalism really? You can't get more CIA than foucault. He never names the institutions in power but no french philosopher will ever do anything of the sort. French philosophy is about obscuring your material and reaching a level of abstraction so high that only pleb poseurs will read you but only the true genius will understand. None of that analytical shit that caters to autists (gross) and STEM drones (ew)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 16:09:48 2018 No.11992147 >>11991356 Does he get around to defining important vs. unimportant matters at any point?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 16:19:19 2018 No.11992187 Ted wrote an essay bashing aprims while in prison. He basically said anprims are leftist retards and actual tribal life was brutal and misgonystic

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 16:26:00 2018 No.11992222 >>11992187 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 16:39:09 2018 No.11992290

>>11992187
>misgonystic
no, he points out that misogyny (in a primitive setting) is more prominent in harsh climates, but sometimes non-existent in milder climates. He makes the case for industrial life to be a lot more sexist than primitive life (early/middle industrialisation). He's right in a way, in a strictly primitive setting; men and women have to cooperate for survival. Agricultural life and artisanship also allowed both sexes to enjoy the same degree of freedom in the middle ages.

Chapter 2 or 3 of Anti-tech Revolution is also dedicated to "anprim" and the romanticization of the primitive lifestyle.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 16:48:02 2018 No.11992329

>>11988581
I want transhumanist fetishists to fuck off /lit/

That smartphone was only ever invented for the things that you listed, and nothing more.

Westerners do no seem to realize that all of the technology that they have achieved was only a means for the creators of it to become rich and to exploit the users from it's potential rather than use it as a means in itself.

This is why Western people are bound to eventually self-destruct and collapse. They are but mere children trying to apprehend God by playing a childish game of pretend as if each and every one of them were one.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:07:21 2018 No.11992601
File: 86 KB, 810x425, unknown.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11992147
Yes but you can only find out if you attempt to study what Ted really means with the power process. It pretty much boils down to doing the power process towards real goals by own autonomous effort. The ability to freely pursue *real goals* is what Kaczynski beliefs is important in life.

(These are some old notes I made, all numbers are what I believe to be page numbers in the book Technological Slavery as you require the letters between Ted K and Skrbina to further understand the power process beyond what is writing in ISAIF)

What are real goals? What I've found out that whatever he says falls into *real goals* all belong into Maslow's hierarchy of needs. These are the things I've found.

Status [55]
Self Esteem [50]
Self-Confidence [406][50]
Sex [55]
love [55]
Security [56][57][115]
Defense [57][64]
Revenge [55]
food [64][47][57][58][102]
water [47]
clothing [64][47][102]
shelter [64][47][57][102]

When you have successfully in obtaining a real goal autonomously with own effort you gain.

[406] Selfreliance
[50] Self Esteem
[406][50] Self-Confidence
[61][50][43][360] Sense of Power

This is how it would look like in the pyramid of needs. (It's a little uncomplete but you get the point)

Pyramide of Needs
Esteem
Status/Self Esteem/Self-Confidence

Social belonging
Sex/love

Safety needs
Security/Defence/Revenge

Physiological needs
food/water/clothing/shelter

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:23:10 2018 No.11992676

>>11992601
But for Ted this isn't so simple as it looks and he attempts to expand on this in ISAIF with specific conditions to show how you can not complete the power process in industrial Society and how industrial Society instead presents alternatives to give you a replacement.

83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the Fascists, Nazis and Communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely.

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself.

The Power Process aligns well with a theory of "learned helplessness" Kaczynski goes into this in Technological Slavery page 273 to 276 and some other pages.

The need for purposeful, successful effort implies a need for competence, or a need to be able to exercise control, because one's goals can't be attained if one does not have the competence, or the power to exercise control, that is necessary to reach the goals. Seligman writes: "Many theorists have talked about the nced or drive to master events in the environment. In a classic exposition, R. W. White (1959) proposed the concept of competence. He argued that the basic drive for control had been ovcrlooked by learning theorists and psychoanalytic thinkers alike. The need to master could be morc pervasive than sex, hungcr, and thirst in thc livcs of animals and men .... J. L. Kavanau (1967) has postulated that the drive to resist compulsion is more important to wild animals than sex, food, or water. He found that captive white-footed mice spent inordinate time and energy just resisting experimental manipulation. If the experimenters turned the lights up, the mouse spent his time setting them down. If the experirnenters turned the lights down, the mouse turned them up.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:28:02 2018 No.11992701

>>11992676
The need for power, autonomy, and purposeful activity is perhaps implicit in some of Ellul's work. Shortly after my trial, a Dr. Michael Aleksiuk sent me a copy of his book Power Therapy, which contains ideas closely related to that of the power process. A major theme of Kenneth Keniston's study 70e Uncommitted is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in the modern world. I think he mentions an "instinct of workmanship," meaning a need to do purposeful work. In the first part of his book Growing Up Absurd, Paul Goodman discusses as a source of social problems the fact that men no longer need to do hard, demanding work that is essential for survival. Reviewing a book by Gerard Piel, Nathan Keyfitz wrote: "Among other signs of the lack of adaptation [in modern society] is ... purposelessness. Our ancestors, whose work was hard and often dangerous, always necessary simply to keep alive, seemed to know what they were here for. Now 'anomie and preoccupation with the isolated self recur as a central theme of U.S. popular culture. That they find resonance in every other industrial country suggests that the solving of the economic problem brings on these quandaries everywhere.'''1221 Thus, I argue that the power process is not a luxury but a fundamental need in human psychological development, and that disruption of the power process is a critically important problem in modern society. Because of my lack of access to good library facilities I haven't been able to explore the relevant psychological literature to any significant extent, but for anyone interested in modern social problems such an exploration should be well worth the time it would cost.

Anyhow I just mention specific conditions, these generally are difference in the desire of autonomy.

Yet the inconvenient fact is that human individuals seem to differ greatly in the degree of autonomy that they need. For some people the drive for autonomy is very powerful, while at the other extreme there are people who seem to need no autonomy at all, but prefer to have someone else do their thinking for them. It may be that these people, automatically and without even willing it, accept as their own goals whatever goals are set up for them by those whose authority they recognize. Another view might be that for some reason certain people need purposeful effort that exercises their powers of thinking and decision-making, while other people need only to exercise their physical and their strictly routine mental capacities. Yet another hypothesis would be that those who prefer to have others set their goals for them arc persons who have acquired learned helplessness in the area of thinking and decision-making.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:29:57 2018 No.11992710

>>11992701
And also drive for power
78. First, there doubtless are innate differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at the "plantation darkies" of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)

I believe there are some more conditions but Ted is sometimes a bit vague on that. This is still very Worthy to explore especially in comparison with the artificial replacementd to the power process.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:40:16 2018 No.11992759 >>11988622 >N-n-o, you're wrong!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:41:29 2018 No.11992765 >>11988581 You drip pretentiousness

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 18:58:07 2018 No.11992830
File: 41 KB, 640x480, p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11988491
The only delusional thing about uncle Theodore is that he thought there was something that could be done about the ills he diagnosed.

The idea of individual human agency making a difference on the rise of technocapital is ridiculous. You fundamentally misunderstand the swarming nature of it and are a bona fide liberal humanist if you think your little choices matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:01:47 2018 No.11992849 >>11992830 >technocapital Go back to twitter you defeatist nigger suffering from learned helplessness

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:19:54 2018 No.11992916 >>11992849 Being anything but fatalistic is extremely delusional in the grand scheme of things.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:27:05 2018 No.11992941

>>11992601
>>11992676
>>11992701
>>11992710
Appreciate the thorough explanation, anon.

It all sounds like insane mental gymnastics to me, however. A whole lot of words to ultimately express the following: "I don't like modern society. Here is what I value instead." Ted doesn't seem to offer a real solution to any of these so-called "issues" and instead just provides yet another form of "issue," because let's face it, he doesn't like the modern value structure and regards it as nihilistic, but his value structure is just another man's nihilism. Overall, he seems like a narcissist attempting to cloud his narcissism in "logic" to make it seem otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:30:50 2018 No.11992955 >>11992916 Only if you never had opened a history book in your life.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:37:32 2018 No.11992973

>>11992710
>>11992941
Also,
>To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.
Isn't this a fundamentally leftist comment? Why would someone sneer at such people just for being who they are?

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:40:06 2018 No.11992982

>>11992941
>"I don't like modern society. Here is what I value instead."
That's not what it is, please read carefully what I wrote here.
>>11992676
>>11992701

If the problem of learned helplessness can be tested (Wich it is) and is provided with plenty of evidence by different people then this problem doesn't just boil down to a difference in value systems but a deprivation of an essential mental need required to function well. This for humans and Animals.

>Ted doesn't seem to offer a real solution to any of these so-called "issues.
He does and this is "Revolution" Wich is a major theme in ISAIF Wich supringly many critics flat out ignore making me assume that they do not read the material that they have a critique towards as this anon in part explains.
>>11991077

Do note carefully that "Revolution" is a loaded word and requires clarification. Many just flat our assume it's an spontaneous popular revolt and critique that instead of attempting to find out what Kaczynski means with Revolution Wich requires you to actually read him. (Not skim or mere reading for just entertainment)

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:45:09 2018 No.11993002

>>11992973
Not really, leftists believe in the potential of all humans to gain class concienceness. They see any reactionary to have the possibility to be converted instead of just accepting that they beyond salvation and so mock or sneer at them. The leftist after all sees alot of submissive people as part of the revolutionary agent of the working class, they just have a "false concienceness" like Marx says.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:48:28 2018 No.11993020 >>11992955 You probably misunderstand history and cling to some silly great man theory.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:51:01 2018 No.11993026

>>11992982
I did read it carefully. My statement still stands.

>Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement.
There is no reason for casting this in light of modern society. It's something that almost all species do, and is no doubt what we did long before civilization began.

>When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process.
This undermines the joy of mediocre people. "only an insignificant part" is the clue here — he downplays the importance of mediocre people here, why? "feels as if he had gone through the power process" — as if there is something WRONG about that feeling, or superficial about it. He has no respect for mediocrity.

>Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities.
He only calls them "surrogate" because he doesn't value them. There's nothing logical about this assessment.

>the problem of learned helplessness
No such thing. Or rather, every single bit of learning, also teaches us some form of helplessness — one cannot learn ANYTHING without this happening. This goes for all other species.

>a deprivation of an essential mental need required to function well
And what about all the people in society today who function well, including the ones who go through the "power process" without joining an organization but another way (e.g. like starting one)? They don't matter?

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 19:54:11 2018 No.11993036

>>11993002
>leftists believe in the potential of all humans to gain class concienceness
Is that not EXACTLY what that passage I quoted suggests he believes, though? To sneer at a mediocre person because he enjoys his mediocrity means you think there is something wrong with a person loving him or herself, and that they could, or at least should, try to rise above — rise above their "class." His statement is leftism, he just doesn't realize it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:01:56 2018 No.11993067 >>11989070 >tiktok Quick rundown for a 30 year-old boomer?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:05:21 2018 No.11993087 >>11993067 https://youtu.be/kvb6RbIV7t0 It’s basically Vines for people who are mentally disabled.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:21:34 2018 No.11993142 >>11993087 There is no more compelling proof that there is a God who loves me than me growing up before it became normal to post yourself online.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:22:16 2018 No.11993146

>>11993026
>It's something that almost all species do, and is no doubt what we did long before civilization began.
That's ridiculous, only humans have the capicity to create "powerful organizations" or "mass movements" and even have the ability to CHOISE such over the power process Wich is a naturally occurring tendecy in most species as it's a survival instinct. And no such things can not exist before Civilisation as large organizations and MASS movements require a division of labour and specialisation to be able to create people able to use their time to organize other people Wich requires these people to live on a surplus only possible in Civilisation with agricultural production. Further on the power of powerfull organizations comes from Technology Wich too requires a division of labor and Specialisation into the development of technology as seen with artisans who depend too on the surplus of the rest of the population.

>He has no respect for mediocrity.
This is fair.

>He only calls them "surrogate" because he doesn't value them. There's nothing logical about this assessment.
Wrong, check this qoute.

Third point (surrogate activities). I've never said that surrogate activities "must be abandoned." Also, the line between surrogate activities and purposeful activities often is not easy to draw. See ISAIF, §§40, 84, 90. And surrogate activities arc not peculiar to modern society. What is true is that surrogate activities have come to play an unusual, disproportionate, and exaggerated role in modern society ... .In any case, I don't see that anything would be accomplished by attacking surrogate activities. But I think that the concept of surrogate activity is important for an understanding of the psychology of modern man.

>No such thing. Or rather, every single bit of learning, also teaches us some form of helplessness — one cannot learn ANYTHING without this happening. This goes for all other species.
You don't understand what learned helplessness is, you simply assume whatever you think it is by grabbing "learning" and "helplessness" and from these words alone make something up.

"Learned helplessness, in psychology, a mental state in which an organism forced to bear aversive stimuli, or stimuli that are painful or otherwise unpleasant, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are “escapable,” presumably because it has learned that it cannot control the situation."
https://www.britannica.com/science/learned-helplessness

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:28:08 2018 No.11993172

>>11993146
>And what about all the people in society today who function well, including the ones who go through the "power process"
It's impossible to go through the power process in an Industrial Society. It's litteraly fourth of the content of ISAIF. Please read the text before assuming things. And it's very questionable if everyone functions well, the amount of mental illness problems currently present in industrial Societies is insane. For example the epidemic of diabetes, depression, Obesity and so on. And not even speaking of the effects on the third world. (Not like all Societies are perfect but that in Technological Society it's on wide scale)

>and that they could, or at least should, try to rise above — rise above their "class."
No he doesn't believe that, he clearly says that some people have a strong desire for power and autonomy and some do not. Those who want power and autonomy are more frustrated then the people who are more accepting of servitude. These people who enjoy servitude would generally to be the people who do not show much discontent to the state of slavery or serfidom.

>His statement is leftism, he just doesn't realize it.
No you just don't realize what he is saying, you just make it up. A flawed Interpitation based on insignificant information to come to such conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:29:49 2018 No.11993179 >>11993036 >>11993172

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:40:26 2018 No.11993217
File: 701 KB, 1539x1211, 1518500240318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11993146
>That's ridiculous, only humans have the capicity to create "powerful organizations" or "mass movements"
How is it any different from flocks and families of species living together, or tribes? This is all done out of one's need for power. Civilization's organizations being more complex and intellectual do not mean they are something of a different nature; I see no need to bring it up as if it is something unique to society.

>Wrong, check this qoute.
What is written there indicates that he at least acknowledges the value they CAN have, but not that he himself values them. If he did, he wouldn't be calling them surrogate activities. This is like saying there are such things as surrogate passions.

>Learned helplessness, in psychology, a mental state in which an organism forced to bear aversive stimuli, or stimuli that are painful or otherwise unpleasant, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are “escapable,” presumably because it has learned that it cannot control the situation.
Okay, except my point remains. All education renders us "unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those [aversive] stimuli [...] presumably because it has learned that it cannot control the situation" in some form, because all education is specialization, and all specialization is preparation for a particular way of life, and all particular ways of life require that one dedicate oneself to it at the expense of all other ways. We always see, whenever one gets educated, a mental process in which a person comes to understand how to persevere in one manner and becomes incompetent in another, often subconsciously. Eventually, one always has to confront their growing incompetency at some point in life. But this is natural, and far from undesirable, or a "problem."

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 20:47:43 2018 No.11993244

>>11993172
>It's impossible to go through the power process in an Industrial Society.
Why is that? Going by Ted's definition:

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the “power process.” This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42–44).

I see no reason to think that this power process is impossible today.

>And it's very questionable if everyone functions well
I didn't say everyone did. Utopia is fantasy; there is no state of affairs in which everyone functions well. It does not exist within civilization, or outside of it, besides in outer space, where it exists as a general rule only because nothing does and all inequality has been leveled there.

>No he doesn't believe that, he clearly says that some people have a strong desire for power and autonomy and some do not.
Why would he sneer at a slave for being happy then?

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 21:12:33 2018 No.11993353

>>11993217
>How is it any different from flocks and families of species living together, or tribes?
Because powerful organizations and mass organization requires hierarchy and complex organization if people and resources that is not present in small forms of organisations like families or tribes. There is a major difference in the division of labor and Specialisation present between a direct tribal Society of around 150 and a Civilisation with a few thousand people Wich requires the close cooperation of different roles and instutions to let it remain functioning. Like for example organization of the supply routs and supply chains, border protection, justice system, property rights, enforcement of believes, infrastructure and so on.

>If he did, he wouldn't be calling them surrogate activities.
But in context of our human instinct and what is observed in those qoutes mentioning "competence" it presents that the power process is better then a surrogate activity as it's more in tune with how we have been evolved to operate mentally (as it's a reward system for working towards survival) and thus results in more improved mental health instead of Dependence on supplements as seen currently in industrial countries. Surrogate activity is insufficient to replace the power process as we still experience a strong sense of powerlessness by not controlling the circumstances of your life and Depend on a complex system to provide you with your needs you are evolved to gain by own autonomous competence. The Technological solution off course for this is to modify this drive so our nature will be changed with the needs of the system.

>all education is specialization, and all specialization is preparation for a particular way of life.
Education being specialised is only so if the information taught is only useful for a certain role Wich has utility within a society. This within Civilisation where there is a division of labour and specialisation.

But you still misunderstand what learned helplessness means and only focus on the learned part outside it's context being used as a concept by Martin Seligman.

Take an animal, subject it repeatedly to a painful stimulus, and each time block its efforts to escape from the stimulus. The animal becomes frustrated. Repeat the process enough times, and the state of frustration gives way to one of depression.1he animal just gives up.1he animal has now acquired "learned helplessness." If, at a later time, you subject the animal to the same painful stimulus, it will not try to escape from the stimulus even ifit could easily do so. Learned helplessness can be unlearned. I don't recall the details, but the general idea is that the animal gets over learned helplessness by making succesiful eftorts. Both learning and unlearning of helplessness occur within the specific area of behavior in which the animal is trained.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 21:13:36 2018 No.11993358

>>11993353
For example, if an animal acquires learned helplessness through repeated frustration of its efforts to escape from electrical shocks, it will not necessarily show learned helplessness in relation to efforts to get food. But learned helplessness does to some extent carryover from one area to another: If an animal acquires learned hclplessness in relation to electrical shocks, subsequently it will more easily become discouraged when its efforts to get food are frustrated. The same principles apply to unlearning of helplessness. An animal can be partly "immunized" to learned helplessness: If an animal is given prior experience in overcoming obstacles through effort, it will be much more resistant to learned helplessness (hence also to depression) than an animal that has not had such experience. For example,

if caged pigeons are able to get food only by pushing a lever on an apparatus that givcs thcm one grain of wheat or the like for each push of the lever, thcn they willlatcr acquire learned helplessness much less casily than pigeons that have not had to work for their food. My memory of the following is not very clear, but I think Seligman indicates that laboratory rats and wild rats differ in that wild rats are far more energetic and persistent than laboratory ones in trying to save themselves in a desperate siruation. Presumably the wild rats have been immunized to learned helplessness through successful efforts made in the course of their earlier lives. At any rate, it does appear that purposeful effort plays an essential role in the psychological economy of animals.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 21:22:14 2018 No.11993406

>>11993244
It's possible but only if you leave Society and live of the grid. It generally is not generally possible as we are deprived of the autonomy and effort needed to work towards real goals as such are generally provided by Technological system.

Please see "Restriction of Freedom is Unavoidable in Industrial Society" part of ISAIF. I Dont see much use to qouting that whole segment here in several posts. Kaczynski explains this well enough in ISAIF itself.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc15

>Why would he sneer at a slave for being happy then?
Cause he doesn't think highly or sees potential in these people so doesn't seem them as equal. Its an elitism of Kaczynski I gues. Personally if you are content with servitude then well good for you, it's not worth to appeal or to shame to these people as they won't act on it anyway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 22:55:02 2018 No.11993823 Technology is inevitable and civilization is the result of arm's races between neighboring tribes and collections of tribes. It's quite literally that simple. The problem has always been human intelligence is simply too high.

Anonymous Fri Oct 26 23:06:13 2018 No.11993858

>>11993353
>>11993358
>Because powerful organizations and mass organization requires hierarchy and complex organization if people and resources that is not present in small forms of organisations like families or tribes.
Size and complexity make no difference, I said this already. Ted asserted in the passage you quoted that some identify with an organization and partly satisfy their need for power that way. Small tribes organize for the same reason, as do flocks of animals.

>we still experience a strong sense of powerlessness by not controlling the circumstances of your life
Who's we?

>Education being specialised is only so if the information taught is only useful for a certain role
All education does this.

>But you still misunderstand what learned helplessness means
I certainly don't, because I'm aware that it is subjective, and increases alongside all learning which leads to improvement, while you don't seem to be aware of this balance. In your example, you use physical torture, but within the context of society and technology, this example breaks down. Whatever "painful stimulus" society and technology somehow subjects us to, it has been a result of a greater obtainment of power somewhere else in society.

I think it is time people stopped thinking of themselves as mere individuals and started thinking of themselves as both individuals and parts of a whole. The whole of the universe is like an organism in which when one side's joy increases, the other side's suffering increases. One's suffering is always someone else's joy and vice versa.

>>11993406
>we are deprived of the autonomy and effort needed to work towards real goals as such are generally provided by Technological system
Again, who is we? This just makes it sound like you're too dumb to know how to live in a satisfying way in modern society. Artists make use of technology to create things that would have been unimaginable just decades ago; business magnates create new enterprises that would have been unimaginable just decades ago; we reach further and further into space as technology improves and we continue to improve technology, something that we do entirely voluntarily and out of our imperialistic penchant for dominance; literature, philosophy, and the arts continue to be expanded; all this requires people who put in voluntary effort towards their goals. And if these aren't "real goals," and these desires are "unnatural," then why did they come into existence in the first place? Why did civilization even happen? Why is it STILL HAPPENING? If you were right, wouldn't we just stop improving tech, stop advancing in the sciences, stop reaching further into space, stop creating new things? But we DON'T stop these things, because what you're saying is completely ignorant to the higher cultures of today.

>Cause he doesn't think highly or sees potential in these people so doesn't seem them as equal.
This isn't a valid reason for holding them in contempt. Dude's a leftist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 23:50:55 2018 No.11993974 EMP the machines, Butlerian Jihad now!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 26 23:51:54 2018 No.11993979 >>11993974 based

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:16:04 2018 No.11994044

>>11993858
>>11993858
Short awnser because post whiped two times.

>Size and complexity make no difference
The difference between a Civilisation and a mere flock of birds is immense.

>I certainly don't, because I'm aware that it is subjective
No it isn't, learned helplessness specifically references to a concept. It's not whatever you pull out of your ass you braindead fool.

>That techno idealism bit.
Delusional with no grasp on Reality, today we see all the consequences of the industrial revolution. A 6th mass extinction event, Clinate change accelerating to the point of posing a major existential thread to Civilisation itself, ocean acidfication, country sized macro plastic patches in oceans, micro and nano plastic in all water and almost a large organisms, mass surveillance, massive amount of mental health issues, resource depletion, rocket tech barely being different then 60 years ago and barely progressing. (Elon musk shit is based on 50 year old Soviet tech)

You have to be high on fast food, drinking and drugs to be so ignorant to the current state of affairs. That's even why so much folk say Ted is Right, just pointed out the obvious on the question of the complexity, sustainability, cost and consequences. It doesn't take a wiz to Realize that a means (tech) with immense power has Immense future consequences. To be positive about Technology today is to be fully ignorant about consequences and cost of Technology. This ignorance is what got us in this situation in the first place. There is nothing like a free lunch.

If anyone is interested for more info then check these links.

Peak mining & implications for natural resource management
https://youtu.be/TFyTSiCXWEE

The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter
https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI
https://youtu.be/0KeY1dIPi8k
https://youtu.be/RSXKjH_WjWo

Energy returned on energy invested
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

Jevons paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html?gtm=top&gtm=top

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:24:39 2018 No.11994077

>>11992916
Oh, jesus fuck, more of this, "THERES NO POINT SO GIVE UP" shit, huh? I wish the fucking tryhards and pseuds would just stick to conspiracy theories. If there's no point to anything, that means there's also no point or value in giving up, demoralization, or fatalism, fucknuts. It's an a priori antithesis.

The two concepts are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, meaning they are quite literally two completely different ideas. You only arrived to fatalism because you believe action is ultimately pointless. If action is ultimately pointless, then the act of processing fatalism is also pointless.

This shit isn't hard to figure out. Just actually use your brain instead of reading shit and going with your gut, emotional response to difficult ideas.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:39:34 2018 No.11994119

>>11994044
As some people gain power, others lose it. That's the reality. There isn't an infinite source of energy in the universe. To you, it doesn't matter what good is coming out of society right now, you won't acknowledge any of it, because you're a nihilist who hates it all. Which is why I'm not entertaining your posts further. Continue not addressing people's points and posting about your nihilistic campaign against humanity though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:45:31 2018 No.11994138 File: 37 KB, 405x556, DqYmkuKX4AIW8hy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11994119 >I love Technology >Technology has consequences and costs >You are a Nihilist Are you honestly retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:49:02 2018 No.11994148 He was right about EVERYTHING

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 00:52:27 2018 No.11994163

>>11994138
Not loving technology makes you a nihilist in today's world, and not wanting to utilize it for your own gain makes you weak in today's world. But tell me more about how the self has nothing to gain from it because technology is beyond our control (somehow) and unnatural, and other absurd naturalistic fallacies like that.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 01:17:10 2018 No.11994241

>>11994163
What do you think nihilist means?

Technology is just a buzzword for progress.
What do you mean by natural? groups of chemicals organising themselves into organisms obsessed with progress for the sake of progress is far from natural, We havnt seen any other life in the universe and even in our life filled world there wasn't much progress before humans came along.

Any group of humans that rejects progress will be out competed by those that do so we have no control over submitting to it.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 01:19:39 2018 No.11994253

>>11994163
Because your view of the world is idealistic and based on mere imagination without a well enough understanding of society or grounding In reality and all it's conditions (social, enviormental, economical) to understand the effects institutions and required methods (that require to work in a specific way to increase effeciency, you can't *control* this or else you just ruin the effeciency of a system designed in a specific way to increase max effeciency) Wich isn't supringly that you don't feel any sense of emberrashment thinking the organization of a flock of birds could be equal to something so complex and advanched as the organisation of a Civilisation.

Do you think it's all magic or something? That limitations, conflict of interest, cost, consequences just don't exist for you. It's all cause and effect, and the effects of Technological progress is undesirable and will in itself end Technological progress itself. Being techno positivist and not being aware of these things will end all you like in a quick way. (Implying you can even attempt to rationally direct a complex system with contradicting organisations competing for short therm interest and not the long therm interest to sustain the Technological system.

I blame science fiction and ignorance for giving people a deluded idea of how modern Technology operates and what it requires to operate in logistics, organization, resources and all the costs attached to such and the general consequences or "externalities" attached to it with it's effects on humans, animals and the functionality of the natural processes in nature. This ignorance will be the techno positivist it's end as we see now with climate change taking effect. These great things you claim are ending or will not be provided to future generations because of the ignorance of your generation. A nihilist neglection for the Future of humanity.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 01:23:35 2018 No.11994269

>>11994241
A nihilist is someone who doesn't want to play the game because he thinks it's pointless.

>Technology is just a buzzword for progress.
Technology is just a set of tools. Hammers, cars, guns, rockets, computers, smartphones, particle colliders, etc. are tools for achieving things, that's all. Of course, you need to be smart enough to be a member of the dominant culture that understands this about technology.

>What do you mean by natural?
As in everything that is or was. Nature is that — if it's not natural, it couldn't be or have been.

>Any group of humans that rejects progress will be out competed by those that do so we have no control over submitting to it.
And those that do will, because that's how the game works.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:05:19 2018 No.11994421

>>11994253
>Because your view of the world is idealistic and based on mere imagination without a well enough understanding of society or grounding In reality and all it's conditions
I hate to break it to you, but if you think the whole pattern of civilization right now isn't guided in any way, or can only be driven by involuntary participants, and that freedom is lost in it, this applies to you and not me. It was mentioned much earlier in the thread that freedom is a condition of the heart; our ability to control civilization today and the technology that it consists of is merely a matter of conditioning.

Here's an example of what I mean. Have you ever played a video game before? A more complex one, like Jet Set Radio. When you first start out, you're shit at it. You can barely control it, your timing and precision suck, your overall mastery over the controls is subpar. You don't feel like you're in control, you don't feel "free." But as you continue to play, and if you have the spirit in you to do so, you slowly gain mastery over it, until eventually you're executing entire stages flawlessly, and you feel like you can fucking fly (within the context of the game's rules and controls). You went from feeling like you weren't in control at all, and to lacking freedom, to feeling like you control it all, and like you're free to do as you please in the game — it actually went from being some kind of amusing labor to being an actual game. It wasn't fully a game at first because you were still in "learning" mode as opposed to "playing" mode. Civilization and technology is just like that, and if you think it's impossible for anyone to gain mastery over it, you lack experience which is making your idea of what humanity is capable of very narrow.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:09:34 2018 No.11994432

>>11994253
So, to summarize:

>Do you think it's all magic or something?
Nope. And that's why I disagree with you. You seem to think it is, because you think it's all uncontrollable. If it was uncontrollable, it would have all come crashing down within a few days' worth of time AGES ago. But it didn't, and that tells me that I am right, and you are wrong. The real issue here is that you don't fully understand what it takes to keep everything running, but it's not something you should be worried about, because clearly there are people who do.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:14:10 2018 No.11994443

>>11988581
More to the point, in the hands of a government, that smartphone is a radio tracking collar around your neck, like the ones zoologists put on penguins and sea turtles.

I too grew up before all of this became normal. I look around and see people saying "A government tracking device that records my every movement, my daily schedule, and can also listen in and even watch me with a built-in video camera? Holy fuck, what a great idea! Sign me up! Can I have two in different colors, to go with different outfits?" I am agog.

If you have no privacy, you have no dignity. The most fearsome thing for the prisoner or the slave isn't the lash--we are all born to this world of tears and no one escapes physical suffering. It's the unblinking panopticon eye of the masters, always, ALWAYS looking over your shoulder. Some "transhumanists" even want to virtualize their minds, to live as AIs in the Internet forever--with everything that makes them who and what they are in files to which the admins have both read and write access. That's not Heaven--I can't imagine a more dreadful Hell.

>>11993087
Quod erat demonstrandum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:18:51 2018 No.11994451 >>11994443 >If you have no privacy, you have no way to hide your degeneracy. ftfy

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:33:32 2018 No.11994489 File: 31 KB, 700x528, picard-facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11994421 >Literally uses an engagement in a surrogate activity as an analogy for freedom

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:36:30 2018 No.11994492 >>11994489 So, you can't understand the analogy then? What's your fucking point here?

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:40:08 2018 No.11994501

>>11994489
>>11994492
The concept of a "surrogate activity" is deeply misguided, too. What makes a goal "artificial" is subjective. Arguing for something else about it is on par with the naturalistic fallacy the other guy was making throughout the thread.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 02:51:33 2018 No.11994524

>>11994492
>Civilization and technology is just like that, and if you think it's impossible for anyone to gain mastery over it, you lack experience which is making your idea of what humanity is capable of very narrow.
Your idea of mastery is control within a set of rules, not transcending the rules itself. Ted uses an example of modern infrastructure restricting movement by foot and how it submits to the movement of automobiles. If all of that weren't there, I should be able to go from point A to point B however I want. Freedom is not the choice to do something, but how you do it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 03:35:35 2018 No.11994604 >>11994269 Yes, that's my point, we cant control it, it is inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 03:40:32 2018 No.11994609 read bernard stiegler

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 08:38:12 2018 No.11995073 >>11988581 yes the real danger of technology is totally proles browsing exhentai and not facial recognition algorithims, data selling and China's social credit system right? Neck yourself you pseudo-aristocratic precum dribble.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 09:01:04 2018 No.11995104 File: 368 KB, 636x694, 1445815126928.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11989400 I might actually write him, I don't really support his viewpoint but it might be nice to have someone interesting to talk to.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 09:21:32 2018 No.11995137

>>11992329
>>11994443
>>11995073
>>11992765
t. buttmad plebs abusing tech to conceal their crude and degenerate nature

If only your nigger fathers ejaculated all of you into the toilet, instead of raping your mothers to produce the spawns that are yourselves

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 09:31:36 2018 No.11995147

>>11994421
>our ability to control civilization today and the technology that it consists of is merely a matter of conditioning.

Using something virtual to create an example of how freedom operates in reality shows the type of person you are whom considers total submission towards a role to be "freedom" while you have no sense of control in electricity, it goes out youre fucked. Water supply, out youre fucked, gas, out youre fucked, gasoline, out youre fucked, food in stores, no supply youre fucked, economic prosperity, crisis, youre bank bails out, no job, youre fucked. Your sense of control and freedom? Non existent, fully Depends on a division of labour and specialisation Wich is the essence of Civilisation. Your sense of freedom is obeying and preforming a role like all within Civilisation. This requires obedience and non resistance. All instutions work to maintain stability and peace to ensure the functionality of the system and prevent it from breaking down. And this is from internal, institutional, external problems and challenges Wich constantly test put pressure on the system.

You have no control OVER Technology or Civilisation, you have control over your own agency WITHIN Civilisation and the Technological system. It's your choice to be content with this existance and that's fine. Your concept of freedom or whatever you feel in your heart to be free is extremely questionable and perhaps contradicting to overall notions of being free as you define it as being a content slave following and attempting to thrive in a role wich requires you to be regulated in such a way for max effeciency (and no there is no control in this, you have to follow the rules or you act out of line of your responsibilities and ability to preform your job well.)

I think you generally do not understand what freedom generally means or what makes Civilisation pretty much Civilisation.

>>11994432
>You seem to think it is, because you think it's all uncontrollable
You are now just trolling, pulling shit out of your ass like that and making baseless assumptions. I've explained very clearly why Technological system is not magic and requires a lot of complex organization and functions under alot of conditions where individual agency to influence OVER Civilisation and Technology an impossibility. As you do not control the govermental, economic, logistical organization of society or have any significant influence over these aspects in any way.

>If it was uncontrollable, it would have all come crashing down within a few days' worth of time AGES ago.
Just like all Civilisations in the past? You are not presenting any good evidence here anon. Many Societies have allready Collapsed or are in such state allready in the current world resulting from internal contradictions, conditions, conflict and so on.

It will Collapse like all Civilisations and no it wouldn't be crashing down ages ago, that's stupid and you say so without good reasoning.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 10:50:45 2018 No.11995305

>>11994524
>Your idea of mastery is control within a set of rules, not transcending the rules itself.
Control within a set of rules leads to transcending of the rules — in my example there, when one gains mastery over the controls, one feels elevated, and then what happens (which I left out) is that one develops a vision of a greater set of rules because one's spirit no longer finds the current set palpable, satisfying enough.

>If all of that weren't there, I should be able to go from point A to point B however I want.
You can't do that in OR outside of society. This is another case of "why the fuck does Ted associate this with society when it's universal in nature"? Civilization, rather, expands the options we have when it comes to activity, not restricts, like Ted seems to want to convince us. A monkey has less options for traveling than a human does, for example.

>Freedom is not the choice to do something, but how you do it.
Freedom is a condition of the heart; one must feel that they are free, and that is all, because feelings are all we have.

>>11994604
"we" as in the people who aren't currently guiding the system, sure. As in the grunts and the cogs and plebs who don't control it and can't under their circumstances. You shouldn't speak for everyone, though.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 11:08:38 2018 No.11995356

>>11995147
>Using something virtual to create an example of how freedom operates in reality shows the type of person you are
Indeed. It shows that I am able to be immersed in our culture, while you aren't, meaning I am able to grasp more of it than you. It shows that I may have read Nietzsche, and Baudrillard, while you clearly haven't, since you still call it "something virtual."

>you have no sense of control in electricity, it goes out youre fucked
Indeed. And when you get old and your body stops operating as it did, you're also fucked. When your spark of life finally goes out, you're really fucked. At the base of your argument, freedom is impossible in the universe, just because there are dependencies on other things — so why go on about it and try to tell me that I am not free while you or some "living off the grid" rednecks somehow are? Could it be you have an ulterior motive here?

>You have no control OVER Technology or Civilisation, you have control over your own agency WITHIN Civilisation and the Technological system.
You're missing something crucial here, which is that some agencies are bigger than others, some being big enough to have control "OVER Technology or Civilisation." If no such agencies existed, innovation would never occur; the system would have stagnated and stopped evolving at some point in history. I'm sorry if you can't conceive of such a person, but let's face it, you can't even parse half the things I say here without crudely oversimplifying it, let alone imagine geniuses of the human race who stand out as one in a billion and come and go throughout history, bringing with them immense insight and creative energy and departing Earth with this power when their time comes. The real problem of the matter at the moment is not that there are no people who can control it, but that the people who can are always one in a billion and are mortal. However, there is no reason to think that we will be in a shortage of these geniuses any time soon, as our art and technology continues to harbor the means by which they come about — the ennobling elements which encourage their development and thriving.

>Just like all Civilisations in the past?
I didn't realize all civilizations in the past only lasted for a few days! Systems eventually failing aren't a sign that the systems are too much to control, but that the people who are capable of controlling them don't last due to their mortality, like I said above.

>It will Collapse like all Civilisations and no it wouldn't be crashing down ages ago, that's stupid and you say so without good reasoning.
It would certainly have already crashed ages ago. You think our civilization is self-operating? Your idea of is it pure fantasy then. It requires immense manpower to continue operating. If no one was in control of it (i.e. if no one UNDERSTOOD any of it) it wouldn't last a fucking week.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 12:13:25 2018 No.11995567

>>11995305
>Freedom is a condition of the heart; one must feel that they are free, and that is all, because feelings are all we have.
Aaaaand you went off the rails again. Saying the same New Age feels>reals line over and over again is why none of us are taking you seriously.

Anonymous Sat Oct 27 12:23:31 2018 No.11995602

>>11995567
>New Age feels>reals line
You aren't taking me seriously because you're an idiot who completely misunderstands the points I'm making. What I'm saying has nothing to do with anything New Age, it's just a rephrasing of N's "There are no facts, only interpretations."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 27 14:22:02 2018 No.11996002 >>11994077 Nice sophistry but no amount of it will actually make your individual little life matter in the grand scheme of things.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature