The Coming of Anti-Wisdom

January 27, 2012 at 11:27 | Posted in Everything | 11 Comments

This was going to be a harsh post, and I don’t have the will or the heart to speak such harmful things, so I’m editing it in the hopes that it will be received much easier and will not effect the possibility of coming together for something we can all relate to. Hopefully this will be easily understood.

Basically, the post was going to talk about three things:

1) how the community has blotted out my existence (at least, my existence in these words I have been posting) in favor of the existence they want me to have (i.e., as the “old” Enox that suppressed his intellectual abilities in favor of community stability);

2) how I feel as though the community has projected their own alienation onto me, in order to avoid the anxiety of seeing it in themselves; and

3) how my last post (the mystical one, that wasn’t even responded to) was basically made to express my feelings toward the actual state of the community, in a way that nothing (yet, in the same breath, everything) could be understood.

So all that I am going to say now is that I give up in trying to conceptualize or mystically present to the community my ideas. Because I doubt either posts would truly be read. From now on, I’ll just post philosophical topics in general for the people who enjoy it (and possibly, new blog members).

I was trying to help those who I thought were friends, but it seems as though a large part of my personality has been passively rejected (which is the worst rejection:  if I were rejected violently, that would have meant that I was having some effect). Thus I am assuming that it would be impossible to help, because at the same time, it would be impossible to harm. The indifferent can’t be helped.

No sword would be strong enough to rattle the peace of indifference. Kick off the dust from your feet, as a testimony against them. Let the dead bury the dead.

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

Advertisements

11 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I know the post wasn’t aimed at me so I didn’t respond, but like, I don’t think anyone really sees the problem with this whole “being influenced by the other” thing.

    Like I said in the email before my last, I’d be a very different person with much less philosophical thought if I lived without the other.

    I don’t know what everyone else is like, but I’d guess they’re like me in thinking that there’s no problem because we can’t escape other people, and we enjoy being around them anyway. The notion that we should avoid the other because it’s affecting who we are is probably not seen to be an issue because it’s such a minor, mostly unconscious change, if there is any at all (other than in our actions) and avoiding it would decrease our quality of life.

  2. I only check this blog because of your posts Enox, I just never post on them because I can’t find anything to say XD

  3. Conure, haha, ok. That’s fine, because I’m not really directing them at you anyways. Did you get my recent email?

    AKH: I had a huge response earlier, but I pasted something over the whole thing. I’ll just try to re-make it, but it won’t be as sound as the last one I had typed in:

    “The Other” is not “other people,” nor did I ever imply such a thing. After I consider what would be said even if I meant it this way, I will show you where I defined what I meant.

    Let’s pretend that I did mean “other people.” The problem would not even be that “other people” influence us. I never even made this into a problem, so I don’t know where you’re pulling that from. The problem, if I were to ever say that simple “other people” were the problem, would be that we take their influence to be our own impulse, and do not take the maxim “know thyself” seriously. If they don’t want to know themselves, then let “the Other” swallow them up and purge them of individuality (as I implied in the end of this post: it’s vain to try with a passive audience).

    So here’s the definition straight from my post:

    “When I say, “the Other,” I am not saying the same thing as “another person” or “others.” The Other as I have understood it is the collective mind, the social environment’s leading archetype, the social world, “god,” or quite simply, the template of the “perfect man” as defined by ALL.”

    No, the problem is not “other people.” The problem, as I have even clearly pointed out in this post, is that we are ALIENATED and thus UNABLE TO REACH “other people” through discourse. Instead of knowing someone as a person, we now have to know someone through “the Other,” because “the Other” is the only way to mediate communication in alienation. I said this clearly in the first post:

    “What I mean is this: one finds himself stranded in a lonely existence, alienated from other people because of the conditions of their lives. They have formed no being, no true self-consciousness, because they have not yet realized themselves through another person; they have not passed a “reality-check” to confirm their being.”

    Another problem here is that it doesn’t even matter whether or not the “other people” influence me to act. That isn’t an issue because it’s impossible not to be influenced by some other thing. The problem is when “other people” suppress my total being in favor of only the aspects they like, instead of coming together as a unit expressing all aspects:

    “Basically, we had all formerly united…in order to figure out how to approach the Other. We each are not complete in being, so we gather together to combine our positive aspects (Hegel’s dialectic). We want to present ourselves as “acceptable” or higher to the social world.”

    In this post, all I was trying to say was that it is obviously impossible to help my targets, because they do not wish more for themselves, or, they literally CANNOT wish more for themselves. If they could, there would be an active rejection on their part of what I am saying.

    And if they did not understand, that’s the same thing as passive rejection, because it isn’t possible for those with no conceptual understanding to break the spell of “the Other.”

    But that isn’t to say I’m not going for a final attempt.

  4. Yesh, email is get

  5. Ah, I see. Well, it’s been a while since the topic was discussed and the definition got muddied in my mind, though I did understand the whole collective deal and “other people” seemed an easy way to summarise it (as you seemed to imply in your last post, in fact).

    Regardless, I wouldn’t have my philosophical mind and etc. without a need to appease the other, and I assume a need to appease the other would be to some extent subconscious, therefore being influenced by others (perhaps by others through the other) could be a problem under this.

    But anyway …

    “No, the problem is not “other people.” The problem, as I have even clearly pointed out in this post, is that we are ALIENATED and thus UNABLE TO REACH “other people” through discourse. Instead of knowing someone as a person, we now have to know someone through “the Other,” because “the Other” is the only way to mediate communication in alienation.”

    I don’t see this, memes aren’t that common, nor are they necessary, and I can’t think of anything else that comes under the other and is a barrier to communication.

    “The problem is when “other people” suppress my total being in favor of only the aspects they like, instead of coming together as a unit expressing all aspects”

    That is indeed a problem, as long as the aspect being suppressed isn’t harmful.

    Lastly, what exactly is wishing more for themselves? Is it having the confidence/satisfaction with themselves to no longer attempt to appease the other? Because that would be a good thing to promote. :3

    “But that isn’t to say I’m not going for a final attempt.”

    What’s that gonna be like? :3

  6. I probably mis-communicated something along the way, so I’ll take full blame for any misunderstanding. I have not formulated a philosophical system on paper, it’s all in my head, so I easily confuse everyone (including myself) when I type this stuff.

    “I don’t see this, memes aren’t that common, nor are they necessary, and I can’t think of anything else that comes under the other and is a barrier to communication.”

    I limited the extent of what I’m saying because of previous conversations; which is fine, granted that I be given a chance to correct myself for not having elaborated. “The Other” is definitely not limited to memes. And it isn’t a barrier to communication, it’s a facilitator of a certain type of communication (communication in alienation: I will probably explain “alienation” in a future post). It is human thought externalized (the essence of our existence, but separated from our existence through the medium of technology), and it produces a lot of things (including memes): popular televisions shows, vehicles of transport, Dr. Pepper, music, etc. In the post about sexuality I talked about how, instead of communicating with another man face to face, we communicate with him by using these things. In conversations in America, all the people talk about are stupid things like what they ate and drank, the song they danced to, the show they were recently watching, all of which are expected things that you are supposed to relate to other people with.

    So what is “the Other” that produces these things? The ideal version of man (the ideal being) that has been massified (i.e., become a certain way due to mass opinion). That’s pretty much the definition of what I meant by the term. Of course that’s too simplistic for theoretical purposes but it’s a good start. That’s why I say that “the Other” is god, because if we analyze religion we find out that man is talking about himself when he talks about a deity.

    “Is it having the confidence/satisfaction with themselves to no longer attempt to appease the other?”

    Yes, that’s the foremost aspect. Next would be to “know thyself,” and after that, well, you’d know what to do.

    The final attempt? Using “the Other” against itself, i.e., subverting it, and using it, to destroy it. Of course destroying it is merely an ideal that will never happen (“the Other” is a fundamental human entity, we’ve had it throughout all of history, specifically the idea of god), so my main goal is just to use it to my advantage. My own preference is to stay away from it, but I care too much about other people to not do it.

    There is an art form that represents what I want to do with “the Other,” and it probably represents what I’m saying best:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tournement

  7. Oh I see. :3

    That détournement stuff you’re gonna do sounds like it will be awesome. :3

  8. Oh yeah. You’ll know it when you see it. WINK.

  9. Cool. :3

  10. 3: .looC

  11. 3:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: