some theses #1
1. Writing betrays its writer.
1.1 That which is written takes a life of its own — this is common knowledge — but it is in this very process that it betrays its writer.
1.2 A piece of writing can never be what its writer intends for it to be — it is relative.
1.3 A piece of writing’s deliverance, tone, meaning, etc. is relative to the reader — it is this function that makes it impossible for writing to completely communicate what the writer is trying to say.
2. Interpersonal relations are not needed for opinionation — in fact, it is the lack of interpersonal relations that makes opinionation easier.
3. Presence makes things harder generally.
3.1 Irony is contained in the latter fact in that for most of Western metaphysics, presence was preferred to absence.
4. Schopenhauer wasn’t right, nor was Mainlander, nor Ligotti, nor Cioran, etc.
4.1 Pessimism is just a view — Schopenhauer’s idea of eternal suffering (man) in erection (walking the tight rope of life) can be easily inverted. Though Hegel isn’t found in this inversion.
5. Pumping and dumping fails.
5.1 The cultural connotation of pump and dump is multiple — take it as you will.
5.2 Trying to invert orders via their own games won’t work — limits are presumed — sorry buddy, you pumping and dumping stocks isn’t taking back (like Marx would think) from the Bourgeois class.
6. Life gets most bearable in times of productivity — Bataille can be used to easily explain this.
6.1 The domesticated and tame nature of the profane keeps flowing within its homogeneous system. An order (mode) of expenditure would be heterological in nature and therefore would not be bearable as it repels.
7. What is the significance of hauntology? I’m affected by structures and people who aren’t there anymore. Is hauntology that important?
8. Aesthetics rule this reality.
8.1 Radicalism is desired because of its aesthetic.
8.2 One desires to be more radical than everyone else — you want to outdo the other theorist? Not because of truth, nor to ACTUALLY get to the root of things, but rather for aesthetic.
8.3 The contradiction of modern-day “radicalism” is its ability to be so easily recuperated into the organism that is capitalism — Deleuze and Guattari’s accelerationism and schizoid, Baudrillard’s Hyper-Conformity and Semiotic Accelerationism, even Lyotard’s accelerationism are mainly liked by those outside the academic for their aesthetic of radicalism — the want for objectivity in analysis has been lost. As anti-capitalists, we need to be siding with the base matter, that which is too heterological for the system to recuperate or cut off.
9. Who are these latter theorists (are they even theorists) which would fit our criteria for irrecuperability? I would forward, with a certainty, Georges Bataille (though beware of forwarding his General economics in capitalist spaces, they will either A.) Strawman and misinterpret it or B.) Try to make Bataille’s idea of expenditure analogous to the hyper-consumption of capitalism.
9.1 Irrecuperability is found in very few — Bataille is, for the most part (when contextualized and clarified), irrecuperable, but we need something so clear in its opposition, something which caricatures of can’t be made.
10. Ideological rigidness is too much of a problem for pedagogy to be advanced.
10.1 People get attached to certain theorists out of aesthetic, nostalgia, tradition, etc., and go on to defend said theorist with their life (I can personally attest to this. I have done this with Bataille, but there are always things which a theorist says which one cannot, in good faith (which we desperately need to gain back), forward.
10.2 We need to start specifying our ends and why we believe a theorist to be true before we even forward their positions — anything to the contrary of this latter statement is non-sensical from a position of forwarding pedagogy.
10.3 Our presuppositions are what we want to justify — and we do this wrongly. We need to critique them before we try to create advocacies.
11. Just actually try to not be dogmatic.