Nilsi

Bad timing perhaps, but St. Petersburg is a vibe. On my bucket list as well.

Literally my life. If that’s your definition of „luciferianism,“ i’m happy to be a „luciferian.“

A little accompaniment to match the energy of this rant:

I think, by now, it should’ve become obvious to anyone that the rationalist-determinist conception of the world, commonly referred to as "the modern," is passé and is losing its authority over "the real" rapidly; a trend that has been observed in the arts and the social sciences for over a century, but is even starting to become obvious to an increasing number of people in regards to modernity's most precious institution: democracy. The idea of the state "of, for, and by the people" has obviously had its fair share of criticism from the ranks of the political left ever since Marx and Engels penned the "Communist Manifesto" and called out the self-serving shenanigans of the "bourgeois democrats." The idea that the economy could capture politics and thus break the triadic accountability of the populace checking the state (by way of democratic elections), which in turn checks the market (by way of regulations), which in turn checks the people (by way of incentivizing production and consumption), may have been radical in the 19th century, but must have dawned on even the most fervent Kantian in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis when even modernity's most beloved model governments, such as the U.S. and Germany, shamelessly and openly used taxpayer money to bail out some of the most nefarious private banks whose fraudulent operations almost caused a total collapse of the world economy (and who, in the case of Deutsche Bank, just days earlier paid 10 million dollars for the Rolling Stones to play a private show for their lovely president's club - only the best for the best of the investment bankers, whose only job it is to create and sell arcane financial products for their clients to speculate on an even more arcane and out-of-control financial system). One could, of course, interpret that crisis of 2008 as us having momentarily lost the plot on our dear path to enlightenment and universal reason. "Contradiction," the specter of Hegel whispers into the collective ears of the Western world, "is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only through resolving contradictions that we progress towards the realization of the absolute." But is it? And how long can we keep kicking this can down the road before "contradiction," this "root of all movement and vitality," uproots our entire civilization (and perhaps the entire planetary system and the possibility for the continuance of life on Earth with it)? But surely we must have learned from our mistakes, mustn't we? Surely we couldn't have put all our money back into the hands of a small number of large, opaque corporations, when we found out that the people tasked with regulating these corporations are the same people who get a big juicy profit share when these companies hit their targets (looking at you Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG). Surely we must have diversified our economic dependencies? And diversify we did. ETFs? You're telling me we can evenly distribute our money throughout the entire global economy? Remember that thing where we just took our taxpayers' money to bail us out of this crisis? Close call, huh? It would've been better had that taxpayer money been invested more wisely before… We would have had so much more to spend… Aye, and about that ETF thing again. The thing where you get the best ROI to volatility ratio? Way better than giving our money to these cooky investment bankers with their obscure speculation products. We can actually invest in the entire global economy now. And guess what! The entire global economy is waaay too big to fail - obviously. Everyone knows it. And while we're at it: let's make sure all our pension and insurance funds are invested in these ETFs as well. That way, they will be safe too. Ahh… nice… "You could be my luck. Even in a hurricane of frowns. I know that we'll be safe and sound"... I'm not assuming you people here are too familiar with contemporary economics, but the basic idea of an ETF is to invest in an entire market (or the entire global economy) easily and cheaply. These are, of course, complex transactions, which is why they are handled by large investment firms that manage the money of their clients, the clients in this case being the government. Of course, network effects and economies of scale play a role here in how easy and cheap it is for an investment firm to make these transactions, which is why in any sector with such dynamics, such as social media, there has practically emerged a monopoly (a duopoly in the case of ETF's) of corporations making these kinds of transactions on a large scale: BlackRock and Vanguard. These two corporations now manage roughly 20 trillion dollars, which is about 20% of the global money supply. At the point of the market crash in 2008, the major banks involved were managing roughly 25% of the global money supply, whereas BlackRock and Vanguard were only managing around 4% of the global money supply. So all we've really done to "diversify our assets" is place them in the hands of an even smaller number of institutions, whose power over the global money supply is now rapidly approaching the point at which the system broke in 2008. And guess who's regulating these companies… correct, the Big Four yet again, whose top managers are once again counting their oh-so-sweet comission checks, throwing a big party at the precipice of collapse. And what's even worse is that this time all the spare money from federal reserves remains entirely committed to this circlejerk of bourgeois capitalism. So who's gonna bail us out next time? I hope this little example has made it clear that the idea of a sovereign state has become utterly laughable and is becoming an increasingly dangerous fiction to buy into. Modernity, with its deterministic dreams of progress and rationality, continues to barrel towards the precipice, ignoring the signs of its own impending obsolescence. It seems more like we're living in the twilight of modernity rather than a new dawn. Meanwhile, modernity's second favorite child - science - is throwing a similar shitshow. The Silicon Valley AI lunatics, with their glorious promises of transcendence and efficiency, might not look as sharp as Patrick Bateman in 80's Valentino Couture, but they are just as adept at making utterly insane ideas sound fashionable. The tech world is buzzing with talk of the singularity and the impending AI utopia, "juuuuust around the corner, guys!" It’s the latest fantasy: the idea that technology will soon usher us into a perfect world where machines take care of everything, and all we have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride. But let’s be real; it’s just another carrot on a stick, another perhaps not-so-noble lie to distract us from the chaos and unpredictability that define our reality. AI is equal measures utopian dream and maximizing profits, surveillance, and control. It's all about who can create the most sophisticated systems (just as sophisticated as Edson Mitchell's investment portfolios were in Deutsche's heyday) to predict and manipulate behavior, turning people into mere data points to be exploited. The dream of a rational, controlled society powered by AI is just another fantasy of stability in a world that refuses to be tamed. So, what can we do in the face of such profound systemic failures? Welcome to the Deleuzean age, where the world is a labyrinthine network of ever-shifting power structures and identities. Deleuze and Guattari paint a picture of society as a "rhizomatic" entity, where traditional hierarchies and stable identities are things of the past. In this psychedelic landscape, there's no grand narrative to cling to - just the relentless flow of forces and desires, interweaving in a complex dance that’s as sexual as it is political. Forget the old systems of control and order; they're just illusions now. We're living in a postmodern condition where everything is in flux, and stability is just an illusion we desperately hold onto. As the man himself once said: "There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons." In this Deleuzean wonderland, there's no grand solution, no comforting stories of progress or redemption. We’re left to embrace the chaos, the multiplicity, the endless becoming. There are no ultimate truths, no fucking absolutes - just the raw, untamed reality we find ourselves in. Maybe the best we can do is join Larry Fink and his ilk in a collective party as the world goes down the drain, celebrating the end of the deterministic worldviews that promised so much and delivered so little. At least we can say we were there when it all went to hell. In practical terms, what does this mean though? It means rejecting the false securities offered by the state and the market. It means recognizing the limitations of technocratic solutions and the dangers of concentrated power. Instead of seeking to control the uncontrollable, perhaps we should focus on embracing the uncertainty and impermanence of life. This might not sound like much of a solution, but in a world where all the old certainties are crumbling, it might actually be our best bet.

This is the "shit's about to hit the fan big time, and I have no idea what to do about it, so I might as well have fun while I'm at it" manifesto.

there is a lot about myself that is nebulous and intransparent to me, but one thing that is quite clear to me is that i'm not happy - and i haven't been in a while. this is something that my closest friends also notice. some of them get angry with me and call me crazy for pushing myself so hard, while others tell me they are sorry for me and express their love and concern in that way. something that all of them regularly bring up is the topic of therapy. the thing is, i'm very much afraid that being happy and getting better will make me less effective, and there are multiple reasons for that. one being that i will likely end up less obsessed with making money and educating myself - two of the biggest levers in building up my agency to do shit in the world. another being that i suspect i won't be able to empathize with all the world's suffering as much and feel less motivated to do something about it. i've noticed in my friends that are/were in therapy a quite noticeable shift. they are much more content and easy on themselves, and their ambitions have been toned down significantly. i'm pretty sure that's because therapy is nudging them towards being better adjusted to society and a "normal" way of life. on this issue, krishnamurti's classic quote "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," as well as the general ethos of nietzsche's philosophy come to mind and assure me (although i can't say i'm very sure on this at all) that i'm right on this issue. on the other hand, another famous quote by nietzsche comes to mind: “beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” and i don't want to end up like mark fisher, who gazed a little too long into the abyss of capitalist realism and ended up killing himself. now i certainly would like to be happier. i would like to spend more time with the people i love. i would like to experience more relationships with all sorts of people. i would like to spend more time in nature. i would like to have a decent relationship with my family. i would like a lot of stuff to be different, but it seems like all of it would take away from my capacity to be effective. i'm seriously contemplating just giving therapy a shot, but i'm also fucking scared of what it might do to me. i'm not expecting anyone to give me advice, i'm just trying to start a conversation on this issue and hopefully get some new perspectives on this issue that will shed some light on my situation.

thanks for all the replies. i actually experienced a big hit of clarity earlier today. i've been spreading myself too thin, trying to do too many things at once. i'm always striving for excellence, and it's hard to pursue too many things simultaneously while meeting such high standards. i think a good chunk of my discontent stems from not being inspired by myself for some time now. i need to focus on furthering my career, which is in sales and marketing. i've been delving too deeply into abstract philosophy lately, and it’s been quite overwhelming. the core skill set i'm trying to develop is negotiating complex deals and understanding power and influence as deeply as possible, using those skills to help bring about a more good, true, and beautiful world for all. of course, the deeper i understand reality in all of its complexity, the more informed choices i can make, but i've been pushing a bit too far lately and need to return to the basics again. i will take a hiatus from this forum for a while now. i've been thinking too much lately, and that's what usually gets me into trouble if it’s not in service of my goals and current situation. when i return, i will have grown and developed a lot, and i'm looking forward to it. until then, stay safe, friends.

that begs the question of what wholeness is. if you were truly in touch with the interconnectedness of everything, would you truly be happy seeing all the misery and pain around you? and would you be content just sitting around being "happy"? i'm not trying to sound like some blackpilled doomer. i also feel happy at times, but those moments are rather rare, and perhaps that's how it's supposed to be. i love life. i'm an optimist at heart. it's just that the world is a dark place. on the surface, i have everything one could ever ask for. i'm healthy and full of energy. i make a ton of money. i'm very intelligent and well-read. i'm jacked. i have a wardrobe filled with fine european designer clothes. i'm extremely charismatic. yet i'm still profoundly depressed and i don't really enjoy any of these things. the only thing that brings me real joy is connecting to other people, and that, in my experience, is impossible from a place of "stoicism" or "nirvana" or whatever you want to call being detached from shared reality.

not looking away would be a good start, if you ask me.

my point is precisely that adopting a "stoic mindset" is just a cowardly copout. i don't want to be stoic, i want to feel as deeply as possible, and that leads me to mostly feeling pain and suffering, even though i don't think i'm a very neurotic or negative person by nature, but that's just most of what i experience in the world (besides precisely this psychopathic stoicism and "positive thinking," nlp, think and grow rich bullshit). i'm not saying there aren't moments of happiness, joy, and love - but i encounter this precisely in the people that have suffered most and are most in touch with this reality.

this is precisely the assumption that always gets me into trouble with my friends. they often make the same argument as you, admitting that it is, of course, a privilege to be happy, but that i should be grateful for being well situated and it doesn't help anyone either if i'm feeling bad. i just feel like that's so out of touch with the situation of the world; all the suffering and impending catastrophe of the world, and you are drinking your chai latte, doing yoga and preaching to me about "work-life balance"? just recently i had a conversation with one of my friends and this issue came up, whereupon she defended her position by telling me that she once worked in an orphanage while doing work and travel in australia (the audacity of this is actually stunning) and that she will use her wealth at some point to build new orphanages. what the fuck is that supposed to do? you sitting in your ivory tower, doing some philanthropy to clear your conscience, while being as far removed from the reality of those kids as possible? perhaps i'm strawmanning this perspective a little, but i do have some serious negative reactions to this line of reasoning.

“what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” - friedrich nietzsche i don’t buy the whole “optimal experience” narrative of a few hours of “deep work” a day. what is one supposed to do with the remaining 12 or so hours? just dick around? even the most charitable interpretation of this narrative, such as that of schmachtenberger, in whose view a significant chunk of time should be spent just “being” (in nature, with loved ones, in prayer, etc.), doesn’t resonate with me. i could never. 90% of my life is a grind - not to get to some place where i can then finally enjoy myself, but because it’s intrinsically the way i enjoy life the most. my „being“ is „being on a mission,“ and i wouldn’t want it any other way. so i guess it’s up to you. there’s no cookie-cutter solution that works for everyone.

kendrick here masterfully analyzes the systemic vortex of crime and violence within black culture. he deconstructs the narratives of successful black people who are looked up to as role models, yet only perpetuate and reinforce the preconditions of their demise. this theme is visually reinforced by him morphing into controversial black celebrities like o.j. simpson, kanye west, and will smith, and is constantly underscored by the marvin gaye sample that forms the musical backdrop of the lyrics. gaye, a hugely successful black musician and prominent social justice activist, was famously shot by his own father over a trivial personal dispute. this "cultural" perpetuation of violence and pain is also viscerally felt in the beating drum loops that relentlessly run throughout the track, culminating and resolving in kendrick speaking from the perspective of the late nipsey hussle, the ultimate tragic hero of black culture, who suffered a similar fate to marvin gaye. kendrick feels indebted to carrying on his legacy, hinting at the perhaps inevitable martyrdom that comes with being a true black leader. kendrick, in some sense, blames black culture itself for its own shortcomings, presenting a harsh realpolitik reflection on the once-promising civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. while the movement achieved surface-level successes in changing policies and ending segregation, it has, in some sense, failed to change the fate of african americans in a meaningful way.

album is out and i’m not disappointed 😤 new porter robinson single is also amazing - can’t wait for the album: this is a great year for pop music 🔥

how old are you?

that's a big difference.

i'm not even trying to make a kantian point per se, but rather a deleuzian one, but i'm really at the edge of my ability to articulate (and even properly understand) this. let's return to this topic in a year or so and i shall have a better answer.

the emergence of "numbers" as a concept has been a rather recent event in the evolution of the universe. there are no numbers without some intelligence's cognition of them. also, there can be intelligence without numbers: most of my day is spent without cognizing numbers or mathematics. even modern psychology agrees that there are multiple intelligences, only one of which, "logical-mathematical," is contingent on the existence of numbers. returning to the allegory of the dice throw, i will run into numbers from time to time, but a lot of the time i won't, and even when i do, the context of what a number is constantly changes, as the situation in which i encounter them changes, as my understanding and the general theory of numbers changes, and so on - and this gap in between is prior to the existence of numbers. i'm precisely making an anti-platonic argument here.

i don't know what you mean by "abstract objects" specifically, but on the general question of identity, i don't think i have a better answer in me right now than the one i gave above.

the point is that difference and repetition, chance, and the dice throw, as i talked about them in the edited comment above, are prior to identity itself. with immortality being the continuity of identity, any such possibility has to be rejected precisely on the terms that all identity is fundamentally discontinuous, i.e., there is a metaphysical gap in the material (meaning the world of appearances, forms, ideas, natural laws, etc.) universe, which is precisely what allows it to exist in the first place, and what prohibits any such phenomena from being anything other than finite, impermanent figments of infinity. it should be intuitively obvious that only the infinite can be immortal, but here we are.

they get eaten by predators or killed by pollution. even if they weren't, their evolutionary niche wouldn't exist forever, as their environment and the species itself evolve. even atoms have only really existed since humans started imagining them through contemplation and research. we are already at a point where any notion of an atom, and with that the possibility to even imagine them, starts to break down. so, at some point in the future, atoms will literally stop existing (until perhaps someone reopens that conversation). in any case, it's all in flux and utterly impermanent. the only permanence in this is the "eternal return," to talk with nietzsche, which is the perpetual arising and passing away of any form or idea, as, for example, the atom in this example. this is not to imply some teleology, but is rather to be thought of as a divine dice throw, where each throw is an affirmation of chance ("amor fati"), with the possibility of both: difference and repetition.

you just answered your own question. if you have some kind of gnostic ideal of spirituality, human problems and life will slip through your fingers, as you grasp for the "transcendent." this is also an issue with most traditional spirituality, where the immanent aspects of god are often neglected, or downright rejected as heresy, as is the case in mainstream islam. if you want to get shit done, you have to be able to see god not only in the beyond, but also in the muck of "mundane" existence. i'm always reminded of the opening lyrics to george clinton's classic ode to transcendence, "maggot brain," when contemplating this issue: take your psychedelics and jam out to some funkadelic from time to time, but don't get too hung up on it, is what i would suggest. if seeking non-ordinary states of consciousness is what you truly feel called to, i won't be able to persuade you otherwise anyway - and i wouldn't want to either. but there are also plenty of amazing experiences available that don't require rejecting your humanity - being human may even be the pre-condition for those... so there's that.