Rene Girard

my sides at that filename lmao

see Oughourlian, The Mimetic Brain & others for more details. JO does interesting readings of Genesis and others to work this out. he's also a clinical psychologist who applies girardian theory in his work. his books are full of case studies. so you can read biblical literature as text to work this out, but beyond a certain horizon of course it's also worth looking into fields beyond this.

see also lacan - and hegel, and heidegger - for much more on desire/i is an other/socially constructed nature of all desires. much more.
>or just peter thiel

but in the meantime, ask yourself this also: how *firsty* do you need your first principles to be? maybe we're all just catching up with quantum physics. interesting also imho how the more *civilized* and *less fucked up* people are the more, potentially, they might be able to spend time in laboratories...kind of a good look to ease up on the scapegoating and maybe find out what we can learn about our own mimetic processes
>and also this will allow our marketing departments to make only better chicken sandwich ads & vidya designers to make better vidya &c &c &c

>Phil Leotardo: We're friends of your son, from Alcoholics Anonymous.
>Joanne Moltisanti: What's your name?
>Phil Leotardo: We're anonymous.

sopranos is so fucking good.

Can we talk about the girardian lobby group?

Mind elaborating?

i'd be delighted tbqh

it's not like you get an IRL Golden Path-tier meme-seer like peter thiel every day.
>

parse what he means by this sentence and tell me continental philosophy isn't the most balls-out amazing thing ever invented. tell me it isn't crazy as fucking batshit to be alive in this day and age. when people can know things like this.

structure of business revolutions > structure of scientific revolutions? it's all pretty much wrapped up together now in the technocommercial vortex of Fun.

inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.html
>if there's one thing that really excites Thiel, it's the prospect of having younger people's blood transfused into his own veins
>tfw ywn share a parabiotic transfusion in the secret laboratories under palantir HQ w/basically howard hughes 2.0 while discussing rene girard's theory of mimetic desire
>y even live

soooo uhh. given that anthropology and evolutionary psychology exist, wouldn't the first coveting be hidden somewhere millions of years ago? it's rather like a sorites paradox, when does a haystack stop being a haystack. at what point in evolution did man or man-like creatures first fight over resources? and when did the first outlaw premeditate stealing from the righteous? e.g. looking for the non-mythical cain and abel. even eagles steal fish from lesser birds. why are eusocial animals like ants or bees so much better than us.

and is the coveting more important? is the knowledge that one is covetous the singular fact? doesn't have to be I, could be the judgment of another. in other words its tied to sapience.

yes yes. the ability to recognize in a mirror. the ability to imagine an alternate reality where i hold all the bananas. apes or chimps somewhere.

loving the professional wrestling references. professional wrestling is rarely not awesome

>given that anthropology and evolutionary psychology exist, wouldn't the first coveting be hidden somewhere millions of years ago
checks out. quantum physics did nothing wrong

>it's rather like a sorites paradox
plz explain

>when does a haystack stop being a haystack. at what point in evolution did man or man-like creatures first fight over resources

Network: The World is a Business
youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA

>and when did the first outlaw premeditate stealing from the righteous?
ask judge holden

>why are eusocial animals like ants or bees so much better than us
dat oedipus

>and is the coveting more important?
dat hegelian lord-and-bondsman
dat inauguration of two centuries of gnostic marxism wholly propping up the structure of modern academic humanities

>doesn't have to be I, could be the judgment of another
reckon it is

>in other words its tied to sapience
it's why RG was a cool guy. let's try and rein in the whole bloodthirsty death-driven ape thing. let's try something different

The myth of Narcissus is the answer. You don't want your shit, you want the other guy (in the reflection)'s shit.

>plz explain
c/p from wikipedia because lazy:

>The sorites paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?

My analogy is at what point down the evolutionary tree does mimetic desire disappear from humans, in response to:

>ask yourself this also: how *firsty* do you need your first principles to be?

Original sin is the first recorded afaik. Snake says hey babe that's a good lookin' apple god says don't do it eve says why not i want this thing now it's been hyped.

But when was the first biological symptom of this behavior. it goes back millions.

If you're intelligent, no.

If you're the type of person who posts these threads on Veeky Forums, then yes.

Dutch Wiki claims his ideas are supported by new findings, I was reminded by that by this topic so will be looking at the citations. I doubt it

>sorites paradox
TIL. fucking excellent. cheers for a cool new concept my man

>Original sin is the first recorded afaik. Snake says hey babe that's a good lookin' apple god says don't do it eve says why not i want this thing now it's been hyped.
right. which is why literary critics - or j-pete - will look into this for kind of signs or indications of metacognitive process. not a crazy thing to do.

personally? it's just an attractive/repulsive universe. in all kinds of ways.

>But when was the first biological symptom of this behavior. it goes back millions.
more than that, i'd say. bacterium. and before that.

girardian stuff isn't supposed to be gospel itself. just a very handy heuristic, i think. memes & mimetic desire for culture, metaphysics & difference for that in which culture exists and is continually re-inventing.

>at what point down the evolutionary tree does mimetic desire disappear from humans
pic rel. it doesn't

>unless humans evolve to a post-capitalistic sensibility
>what did he mean by this
>honestly i have no idea. but this is where we're at for now, on planet meme

I mentioned that paradox in the RP1 thread a few days ago. Thank you for raising awareness of such a special paradox.

Came here just to read girardfag posts.

How does Girard compare to Eliade?

*blush*
well, Moar is usually on tap. anything you want to talk about?
>be bartender
>wipes glass w/rag
>spits in glass
>realizes this is disgusting
>gets other glass

i'm supposed to be re-reading xunzi for Muh Battered Psyche & b/c a very wise user has made a good case for it. but between solomon's book on hegel and pic rel it's an embarrassment of riches. somehow i'm sure it will all fit together.
>plus i wanna to play alpha centauri again & wreck some fools with the chairman
>and perhaps also pine for an accelerationist remake of autoduel or interstate 76
>&c

i haven't read eliade's stuff but it's on deck b/c of the peterson reading list. from what i gather eliade's work is more impartial. with girard scapegoat theory and christianity are usually in the foreground, but it's never in a way that makes him an unfairly biased observer. it's just that he is expounding his own mega-thesis and he sees the connections to that mega-thesis everywhere.

history of religion is the coolest fucking thing in the world. i used to think that it was just the ultimate meme thing to study in uni, effectively basket-weaving. not so much anymore. you've got the axial age, transpersonal psych, jung, bataille, girard, loads of other guys...hnng.

having digested the landpill thoroughly i'm more into just going back to deleuze now rather than going into the further reaches of Outer Darkness w/ some of those guys. they're opening up cool stuff on the fringes, and guys like sc hickman are always doing cool stuff too - but it's more like inspiration for fiction or just other paranoid Fun than anything i would want to do academically i think.

esp when lacan & psychoanalysis &c have other things that are arguably making the world a happier, sexier, friendlier place than otherwise.

>tfw too much books to read and miss girardfag threads.

the girardfag is profoundly grateful to the Veeky Forums mimetosphere for having allowed him to come here and shake his mimetic hyperstitial sillies out. he genuinely is. otherwise this stuff would have caused his cheese to slip even further off his cracker than it already has.

there are indeed too many books to read. but really it's just about reading the right ones. the ones that give you the answers you're looking for. and they're really there, i believe. that's the craziest thing about it. just when you think you are truly out there in terra incognita, some god-tier writer will give you exactly the sentence, or the idea, or the concept, to un-wind whatever it is that has you wound up. then you gotta integrate. and expound. and *talk about all that shit* until it makes sense. and around and around it goes.

smelters. thought-smelters. w/all that that entails. slag, by-product, people scorched alive, catastrophic meltdowns, all of it. good times! and all of it to produce some fine silver rings that someday somebody can use to hang their curtain rods with.

it's a feels > reals world. so, saith girardfag, you have to keep reading shit until you can articulate how the feels work. because once you can do that, and it *sounds about right* then you can realize you're actually not fucking crazy, because some *other* user had that same thought you did. and then
>and then

this only to say:
Veeky Forums mimetosphere: all glory to

You still up and watching threads dude?

What did Girard think about Islam?

had to sleep. as of next month Veeky Forums time should also be much more limited than it is now. i'll probably cheat on that. this place is too great tho.

iirc he doesn't talk about it all that much. the thing that comes to my mind here is, first of all, that the current political situation v/islam has all been thoroughly mapped out in BttE. it's a really interesting question tho.

commence ramble:

the current deaht spiral of red team/blue team/team islam, combined with trump + migrant crisis, is what got me interested in politics, really for the first time. it arguably produced the girardfag. we are now carefully and methodically withdrawing ourselves from those politics b/c that shit is all the matrix.

but here's something *else* to think about. tho. so ofc the idea of a Matrix is this totalizing idea: the redpill signifies Wokefulness, but at the same time, it also signifies the essence of ideology. even zizek knows there is no full escape from this.

how about this then: *we need a new matrix.* a new way of looking at things. *this* illusion we are presently stuck in *is no longer working.* this one is the neoliberal mainframe. baby-boomer built to perfection. and *failing.* nick land found all those structural flaws in it. the matrix has become Capital and Capital has become the matrix. peterson is also seeing it. from a different view.

a great and crumbling, collapsing machine. predicated on the i. what would be interesting to think, perhaps, is a new model matrix.

because *I is an Other,* yes, but - does this warrant the default move back to cynicism? seems recursive to me. so aristotle would be a good look, for instance; or alastair macintyre; or girard; or any number of others. getting beyond postmodern memery - Capital uber alles - is the present stuff.

something like advancing the plot, by however many nanometers, would be a good look. not marx-style or hitler-style. raise consciousness, drop mimetic fuckery.

so idk about girard, but acquiring some sense of the profoundly similar processes at work in most great wisdom traditions & axial psychologies - including psychoanalysis - is an interesting start. Capital a *problem.* but also i think the ground floor & starting point. for homo mimeticus to be something other than a desiring-machine, or at least better understood, to itself & others.

end ramble.

Slept in today so I'm glad the thread made it through the night. Good ramble as always.

No. Yes.

Thanks man.

cheers fella

my pleasure

Veeky Forums mimetosphere: &c

What is your throwaway email?

If anyone is interested I'll have an epub of The Girard Reader later. I have one now but the TOC is fucked and there is crazy line wrapping I have to fix.

I had a professor in university who collaborated with him. My professor took what he wanted from him, added some christianity and the Bateson double-bind theory, making the edge skyrocketing.

This is how Veeky Forums should be, not the usual low content posts, though I'm sort of making one now
Always insightful, always

I've read Peter Thiel's "Zero to One"

Do I need to bother with "Things Hidden..."?

the secret of the girard-thiel bromance is one of the great mysteries of the universe. i'd say go for it, for sure. if only to dwell upon how it is that master rene managed to occult the thought of memes w/in peter thief's considerably interesting head.

and what a fucking head it is. b/c thiel connects to land, and land to -

modern philosophy is ridiculous, i tell you. it's so Not Dead it's ridiculous. modern philosophy - as capital, as cybernetics, as memes, as intelligence, as all of it - is so fucking balls-out interesting to think about the problem is where to fucking *begin.*

i honestly just wind up writing fiction now most of the time; to me that seems like the right way to go. fiction (and Veeky Forums - i have a deep and abiding feeling of gratitude to this place) is what allows me to catch myself thinking about this stuff in a way that makes for more interesting ideas. and less Society Should X or w/ev.

so i mean i would ofc recommend looking into girard. but reading about business too? and corporations? and how business enterprises are corporatizing intelligence the way factory enterprises factorizes bodies?

that shit is just too interesting. too fucking interesting. if only it didn't lead to so much mimetic fuckery...but really this is all perhaps just the weird feeling of one massive omni-mega-brain all waking up to itself, sending signals back and forth...

you don't want to get too silly too fast, but, i mean, there's a point beyond which *not* being silly itself seems silly. does that make sense?

i'll probably have to make one eventually. don't have one for now tho. just dem rambly shitposts.

life is cool
brains r nifty
insight is dope
anons r chill
& Veeky Forums es los pechos

Eliade started from religious studies, Girard from literary criticism. Girard is not interested in providing an universal account of religious belief and behavior itself, but more focused on desire and the violence it engenders.

Here's his after-9/11 interview that appeared on Le Monde, translated in English:
uibk.ac.at/theol/cover/girard/le_monde_interview.html

Let me quote the French comic Izonogoud here: "I want to be Caliph instead of the Caliph."

don't forget there are material determinants to all of these representations. Check out Martin Nicolaus. 60s-70s Marxist, translated the Grundrisse before going rogue and becoming a self-help guru in Berkeley. Argues, effectively, that the middle classes in the imperial metropole serve as constant capital. capital has abstracted huge swaths of the population out of value-production, and through their conversion to industries like marketing, distribution, shipping, retail, management, and other services that do not produce new commodities, but only shuffle them around to valorization points (consumers), they serve the same function today that machinery served in the factory for marx. middle classes are dead labor, machinated capital. and all this simulation mumbo-jumbo is very precisely the ideological sublimation of this alienated existence.

>le monde
user thank ye most kindly sir

>grundrisse
one of the great philosophical turning points in history? hegel into marx, and latterly marx into deleuze, now deleuze into land
>although deleuze is by no means thoroughly transmitted into land, and A Thousand Plateaus is so slobberingly good it beggars the imagination
a thing.

>apital has abstracted huge swaths of the population out of value-production, and through their conversion to industries like marketing, distribution, shipping, retail, management, and other services that do not produce new commodities, but only shuffle them around to valorization points (consumers), they serve the same function today that machinery served in the factory for marx
hnng

>middle classes are dead labor, machinated capital. and all this simulation mumbo-jumbo is very precisely the ideological sublimation of this alienated existence
what a fucking post. yes. holy shit

that golden throne. that's Empire, just as tiqqun described it. we all serve it. and the Emperor of Mankind - what is *his* relationship to Chaos all about?

blanche channels hr giger, but also no end of gothic medievalism, and much else. we love 40K today because, like all great art - and i submit to you that 40K is one of the greatest settings ever produced, itself being cobbled together from moorcock, tolkien, herbert, much else, who were themselves visionary mystic/poet-seers, pbut - tells us something about this weird fascination we have with death, machinery, and desire. it's all just too fucking interesting.

art tells us that everything we are thinking is *right there in front of us.* and we like to *immerse* ourselves into these things, to *fall into mysteries* - because? because?

because some way way cool shit is going on with human intelligence, that's what. we know what we know, but we have no idea how it is that we know it.

dat *collective* phenomenology of spirit. dat *global brain wakes up.* and not just the brain. maybe it's sublimated drives, too.

could talk about this shit for days, gents. gives me the shivers.

one more, to build on this.

it's not about texts anymore, not entirely; *games* are where it's at.
>mcluhan: players consent to become puppets for a while

yes yes marshall my guy. yes yes. so - puppets - of *what?* of the Feels (aesthetics) and the Rules (mechanics, logic). and where are we? fucking immersed, poeticized, aestheticized, virtualized, electrified -

live, and on the air.

icycalm has done fabulous shit in Making Vidya Great Again. the girardfag would very much to see more into *ludology* and the *ludosphere* and all the rest. what it means to share a virtual world with 20k other anons, these days. that party hasn't even gotten started yet.

>it's why RG was a cool guy. let's try and rein in the whole bloodthirsty death-driven ape thing. let's try something different

so how does thiel buck this? dude seems pretty moldbugian and that requires blood for the vampire to finally awake.

I like you girardfad but don't mention Marx in the same sentence as Hegel ever again.

>*games* are where it's at.

In that case cf. also, obviously Wittgenstein->Lyotard, Saussure (makes much of language as a chess game)->Jameson (who provides an interesting reading of the contradiction in Saussure's two examples of the chess game in The Prison-House of Language) and Bruno Latour, who really gamifies social reality, especially in Science in Action and WHNBM

Also, if you follow up on Latour check out Serres, too, his chapter on the circulating quasi-object in The Parasite

>don't mention Marx in the same sentence as Hegel ever again

what? why not? hegel maps out the user interface of the machine marx describes across the volumes of capital. marx goes so far as to say this almost literally in the grundrisse: hegel's Logic is the "money of spirit," the mode in which subjectivity circulates through capitalism. when you're following hegel's categories you're tracking the general ontogenetic history of particular ideologies. in other words, hegel's logical categories are to ideology as freud's fixation stages are to the individual subject in psychoanalysis

>>what? why not? hegel maps out the user interface of the machine marx describes across the volumes of capital. marx goes so far as to say this almost literally in the grundrisse: hegel's Logic is the "money of spirit," the mode in which subjectivity circulates through capitalism.

That's just Marx impressing his own philosophy into Hegel's text through an anachronism, nothing in Hegel's philosophy points to any kind of materialism which consciousness is subjugated by; at the same time, to describe the logic as a 'user interface' or an 'history of ideologies is laughable, as if Hegel is a subjectivist a la Berkeleley or an anti-realist post-modernist and that the Notion is in our heads only. Hegel's project was to erase any kind of absolute difference between both.

thiel gonna thiel. one idea: maybe he understands that tech innovation maybe *is* the best way to get a handle on mimetic death-sex orgies of violence. not crazy. true, it now requires everyone to keep up with the ever-accelerating joneses. but w/heidegger we can now see that tech + science form an inseparable bond, and the fruit of that is corporate R&D.

thiel i can't analyze or predict. same w/musk. philosophy has a limp. his blood transfusion shit is weird. i cannot deny that i have a certain perverse fondness for the fact that he underwrote the Hulkster's lawsuit and left Gawker media a smoking hole in the ground. these are the gods & heroes we live with today. we can comport ourselves to this. the spice must flow.

anyways, talking about thiel is just always going to be interesting. b/c who knows what he's up to or what he's thinking.
>and ffs there is now an IRL thing called palantir technology. ye gods. use the memepower for good, peter, this is all we ask, and not for evil

kek. i was just watching zizek say something similar to this the other day. can't find the clip atm but it's there: 'marx was not a philosopher.'

so i hear you. hegel is the jam of the jam. i've been carrying a copy of PoS around with me for weeks and will throw no shade on that guy. becoming a big fan of hegel these days & expect to increasingly become a bigger one. i read a lot of wilber & chardin & other evopsych stuff but hegel is a big deal for that. maybe the biggest. so.

>chess
gotta check this out if you haven't.
archive.org/details/THEROYALGAME

chess & game theory &c. boundless Fun. but honestly i never liked chess; too dualistic. will check out those reads tho.

i mean consider prisoner's dilemma. we need this to be able to make new developments in computer science; and of course AlphaGo is now a thing. so all of this. but it's why my favorite games are also rarely *war games* - i like watching them played at a high level, *absolutely* - but i fucking hate playing them. they begin as war games, but then they end as microcosms of war. i prefer those grand space-opera games: Twilight Imperium is super-duper-fun like that.

anyways. much else to talk about w/r/t games & intelligence & Fun. and, you know, fun.

>serres
on the list. hermes. he's a guy.

>more hegel
see neuroplasticity also. catherine malabou has written some interesting stuff on this and trying to find hegel down there in the cortex. not crazy, to my mind. and not so far removed from deleuze either.
>how does metaphysics metaphysicize, anyways?
>mimetically would be my guess. by talking to other metaphysicians
>snap crackle pop

does anybody else feel a sort of mild vertigo looking at images of brains like this? i do.

I'm in a bit of a hurry now but you must read his lectures on the history of philosophy, at least the introductory chapters. You'll see why any kind of 'dialectical materialism' is an unwelcome interpretation of his philosophy (subjective idealism fits this bill as well tbf).
marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpconten.htm

pic rel. thanks very kindly my guy.

>thiel gonna thiel.

that's the danger. tech + science reduces bodies, the meat cog needs to die and it's blood fuels the vampire. except dracula now lives in the machine. his aristocracy guise became obsolete and nazi guise was co-opted. so perhaps there's the sliver lining?

situ knew this >We are all German Jews.

so I have a hard time swallowing a girard-theil link that isn't totally window dressing.

>hat's the danger. tech + science reduces bodies, the meat cog needs to die and it's blood fuels the vampire. except dracula now lives in the machine.
that's it all right. the golden throne. conceals a dark and horrible secret. too grimdark even for the 40K universe.

there are places where nietzsche & girard have more in common than one might think
>he said, cryptically
>and then he thought, about that jungian house, you know
>and about that love of massive & intergalactic tombs
>and about what happens when you conflate jesus, hitler & napoleon
>ah art
>what a trip

>so perhaps there's the silver lining?
so silver it hurts.

>situ knew this >We are all German Jews.
i'd prefer to keep it psychoanalytic rather than psychohistorical. history much too much. let's schizo-emancipate rather. jailbreaking our own iPhones, as it were. metacognition. alternatives to the Joycean nightmare.

>so I have a hard time swallowing a girard-theil link that isn't totally window dressing
one would imagine that girard would just be too sweet a guy for paranoia. what thiel thinks, god only knows. but this is my thing. he's out there thinking, and so are we, and -

and.
>seriously tho that golden throne tho
>that golden throne
>& what is inside
>not so pretty
>but you can't beat the graphics

higher resolution.

kafka on suicide watch, sometimes. this is to read him uncharitably, obv. dat guilt; o dat guilt.

but nietzsche would have had no problem at all being before *this* law. he would have said, *fuck* going inside. the view is just fine from out there. why the fuck open up *that* shit. for the truth? we have art not to perish from the truth.

and deleuze also.

o dat meatbag unconscious, i tells ya. dem feels. dem feels, right in the feels.
>tfw gnostic so hard right now
>take a chill pill my guy
>ok
>still tho
>still

>i'd prefer to keep it psychoanalytic rather than psychohistorical.

if memes infect our bloodlines then what is the difference between thought and body? history cycles because we are anaemic.

>but you can't beat the graphics

not via repetition but bourdieu shows that tarde and deleuze were wrong about a fixed matrix. there are still nodes, not all encompassing, and that inoculation depends on disrupted-habitus.

fuck tech, bio-disruption is what any good girardian should be thinking about and not the lysergic church, that way lies the carpathian throne.

>if memes infect our bloodlines then what is the difference between thought and body?
>deleuze intensifies
>land intensifies
>cybernetics intensifies
>fucking balls-out weirdness intensifies
>i_need_a_glass_of_water.jpeg

>history cycles because we are anaemic
yes. bloodlessness a problem. also vampires. let's get Macho. let's lift some weights. let's get Muscular. antifragile. &c.

>bourdieu shows that tarde and deleuze were wrong about a fixed matrix.
yes. bordieu a guy. one other thing: those *high-class habitats* are *sexy as fuck.* cannot resist. patricians gonna patrish. refinement gonna refine. gotta be able to look good at the penthouse and on the ground floor. will massively fuck with your subjectivity. dat loss of identity
>tfw given the sponge to wipe away the horizon

the things we have to do & the places we have to go to arrive upon a consistent set of ideas & a consistent set of practices. life alone aesthetically justified
>typo: jestified
but we do not want to hand ourselves over to kaleidoscopic amusement once and forever. see pic rel for more details on this & also deleuze/leibniz/the fold. there's radical evil holden-style & radical evil in this mold as well.

>there are still nodes, not all encompassing, and that inoculation depends on disrupted-habitus.
yeah. it gets hazy for me out there tho. to disrupt or not to disrupt. to meme or not to meme. to be silent or not to be silent. to rein it in or not rein it in. to put on a suit or not put on a suit.

the upshot is that this is all just a part of becoming-human. madness is unbecoming. life is *romantic* - not schizolupic, and not autistic. love stories. good scene.

>fuck tech, bio-disruption is what any good girardian should be thinking about and not the lysergic church, that way lies the carpathian throne.
i guess. i'm over-disrupted, you could say. i did it to myself. floating somewhat on the sea, t. ishmael. would like to get back to shore.

Veeky Forums helps. eventually the girardfag will dissipate & meme his last meme & then life will continue. it's been a slice being here, tho. it really has.

I'm always pleasantly suprised how well you are able to synthesize different philosophers and ideas, another great read

>one other thing: those *high-class habitats* are *sexy as fuck.* cannot resist. patricians gonna patrish. refinement gonna refine. gotta be able to look good at the penthouse and on the ground floor. will massively fuck with your subjectivity. dat loss of identity

sure and yet the deep web exists. un-index life exists. bourdieu demonstrated that you can move from village to city to cathedral and disrupt it, you can move, it's not a totality.

>a consistent set of ideas & a consistent set of practices.

sure, land failed to develop anti-enlightment system by being consistent but being consistent does not mean same action on all planes. goffman was the first planes walker, wharolian jesus.

>i guess. i'm over-disrupted, you could say.

is this the crux of such a fatalistic reading of girard? is this not what the passion represents? the egyptians knew that castration is not the death of desire but the necessary step in creation. from a severed dick horus was born. from cruxifixction freedom was born. i just read girard+bourdieu+debord+tarde as a wooden shoe to the power of mechanistic reproduction. castrate the full-metal phallus, surf the deep-web, flip the bird to the god-emporor from the hive city. i want to believe.

Who was the professor?

your mistake is thinking that hegel has any authority over what is done with his philosophy.

Veeky Forums mimetosphere: all glory to

>you can move, it's not a totality.
fullest of full disclosures about the girardfag: he is one blocked-up paralytic motherfucker. *this* quote gives him the ultrafeels.

*this* evangel: he wants to spread it.
anti-oedipus: a mindfuck.
anti-*narcissus:* a mindfuck yet to be written.

the current state: we are *spellbound by simulacra.* narco-hypnotized. dat matrix. dat life only aesthetically justified. dem memes.

those memes: *shared.*
that face: fully rocked off for the thought of it.
>this style: a meme
>ok

>un-index life exists
nomads, yes? war-machines?

i'm *caught* in other words, in a tough place. i want to integrate/i want to disrupt. it all comes out in shitposting. politics/trump/migrant crisis brought it on. Veeky Forums brings it out. eventually we will close our own private pandora's box and go back to reality.

this quote tho. hnng this quote.

>sure, land failed to develop anti-enlightment system by being consistent but being consistent does not mean same action on all planes
yes. that technocommercial capital. which *will* think itself accordingly. and collapse a lovely 3D world into a 2D world. it learned from its makers. we do it to ourselves.

revolution a spook, tho. enlightenment/not being a paranoid/para-android/neurotic fuckup: not a spook. *sanity:* a good scene. also love. also much else. much much else.

>is this the crux of such a fatalistic reading of girard?
it's not reading him closely enough. it's running the risk of doing to him what land did to D&G. surface w/out depth. becoming a meme. having no skin in the game. being a Hortator. all shit i am trying to work out.

>is this not what the passion represents?
maybe. i skew gnostic more than catholic. arguably a form of bad conscience.

>the egyptians knew that castration is not the death of desire but the necessary step in creation. from a severed dick horus was born. from cruxifixction freedom was born.
you are a wise motherfucker user. i have digested lacan, to some degree. currently getting facerolled by deleuze. later to re-Oedipalize? not crazy. sublimation is a good look. hence the fetish for *art.* most of my problems proceed from failed artistry. perhaps much philosophy itself from this. i don't know.

>i just read girard+bourdieu+debord+tarde as a wooden shoe to the power of mechanistic reproduction
well whatever you're picking up from that it is interesting as fuck, so -

>castrate the full-metal phallus, surf the deep-web, flip the bird to the god-emporor from the hive city
yes

>i want to believe
well, he said, in doing this, you're making me a believer, and flipping open some of *my* switches & doors, so -

Sure, you're free to come up with any bullshit interpretation of any philosopher you like,

> adding Christianity and Bateson to Girard

lol uh....Girard literally did that in Things Hidden. He explicitly addresses the Bateson double bind.

Is your professor a hack and a liar?

where did you get the idea i'm interpreting hegel? i'm doing almost the exact inverse: giving an exposition of marx. as to your complaint about marx "impressing" his own philosophy, you either have no idea of marx's own education, or don't understand what a critique is, and how vulnerable hegel's system is to one.

>giving an exposition of marx
Exactly, you are not talking about Hegel himself.

right, so fuck off bitch lol

>revolution a spook, tho.
perhaps but only because its chthonic, parsani's dark heart, oil subjugates from deep below and as with all chthonic cults

>as above so below

graham hancock is a perceptive motherfucker. the anglo mind was possessed of annwn. possibly through hades, possibly through patala, who conquers the dead? look to the pyramids outside america. they thought they found the sun but the it was fuelled by blood. there will be blood as long as the mind tries to rise from chthonic gods.

thats why I don't buy land etc. as rhizomatic. still trying to move horizontally like marx. spectre of marx, possessed by the very spirit he tried to exorcise. horizontal thinking is death. poor debord. chtcheglov is the true skizto-philosopher.

>proceed from failed artistry. perhaps much philosophy itself from this. i don't know.

look to graffiti. roman defacement informs more about the human condition, art, than roman sculpture. catullus was channeling the latrine wall. which is the say, art only fails when it is considered art. theory-fiction failed when it was accepted as philosophy proper like. such a shame but an important distinction imo. failure is a form of comfort.

>well, he said, in doing this, you're making me a believer, and flipping open some of *my* switches & doors, so -

one day I'll write my -nomicon. idk if I can drop the necro but I believe.

>perhaps but only because its chthonic, parsani's dark heart, oil subjugates from deep below and as with all chthonic cults
respect the darkness. this a thing. it was medard boss' complaint about freud: that heidegger understood existential psychotherapy in a much better way. leaving a little mystery there. i'd say that makes sense. good for the psyche. helps us to cope.

>there will be blood as long as the mind tries to rise from chthonic gods.
yep. gotta integrate. big fan of j-pete for this reason, all the shadow/animus stuff.

land's vision of Capital represents everything that is my own shadow, in many ways. and this pic connects girard to jung also.

>thats why I don't buy land etc. as rhizomatic. still trying to move horizontally like marx. spectre of marx, possessed by the very spirit he tried to exorcise. horizontal thinking is death.
no arguments there.

>poor debord
more baudrillard for me but it's not like they aren't functional twins in many ways.

>look to graffiti. roman defacement informs more about the human condition, art, than roman sculpture
muh desire for decadence in elegant roman baths while the city burns tho
>clean your room buckus
>true

>which is the say, art only fails when it is considered art
true af

>theory-fiction failed when it was accepted as philosophy proper like
true af

>such a shame but an important distinction imo
see above

>failure is a form of comfort
this to the moon and back. this everything. this all of it. *we love to fail.* we love to be seduced. this is why i support so many aspects of the redpill. degeneracy is the thing & the mountain to be climbed. and it *will* in a sense be a social thing, but it is not going to work when it becomes a meme: trump hats, terrorism, whatever the fuck.

enlightenment and positivity is what makes real change in the world, but trying to still be cheerful, deleuzian, however in this world after the acceleration hits you is tough. but that's how it is. whether it's antifragility, peterson stuff, redpill, whatever...whatever. it implies a lot of vulnerability, a lot of faith, a lot of hope, trust, charity...virtues that weren't so crazy, once upon a time.

it's all about evopysch with me, not so much class struggle or social movement or anything. all psychoanalytic, deeply bound up with aesthetics, much else...gotta shake those sillies out so that you can know the difference between that which is real, that which is fake, that which is important, that which is not...
>muh Existentialism
>yep. that's what it is, all right

>one day I'll write my -nomicon. idk if I can drop the necro but I believe.
my body is ready. hope you finish that shit my man. fwiw i'm trying to do the same. failing got me onto philosophyfag plateau, Veeky Forumsposting is maybe helping me slowly figure out what it was i was really trying to say.

i is an other, but it can also be a Big Other. being an anonymous (or semi-anonymous) dude helps. DFW was right.

>Respect the darkness. this a thing.

I'm not sold. ofc. Jung is right but there are practical ways out of the shadow. read book of the dead.

>big fan of j-pete for this reason

what does integration look like along the liminal fence? j-pete wants to turn away from the greener pasture. this is anti-life, in the worst deleuzian sense. j-pete's world has been deconstructed. that's why girard's passion is so infectious, he's not advising a return to the cross but reminding us that we should not forget the cross in our hurry to exit the burning cathedral.

>muh desire for decadence in elegant roman baths while the city burns tho

fin-de-sicle decadence is the fate of the house of batiatus. raped and murdered by their own property. the baroque walks thru the symbolist city shines on the hill. decadence has many objects but if the body chokes on the blood from a sliced throat then there is no symbiosis possible.

>his is why i support so many aspects of the redpill.

so interesting that we read in opposite directions. i can't support it because

>but it is not going to work when it becomes a meme

no thought, just reproduction. I'm also not willing to accept the matrix is total. are memes also not cracks in the simulation? can ad-copy not also be written to creative ends?

>it's all about evopysch with me, not so much class struggle or social movement or anything

sure but why? beware science dressed in therapist garb. is the meat-brain not malleable? it's true you can't "cure" psychic suffering but dragging those demons from the subconscious into focus is therapeutically effective. I think I read somewhere that most people are fine after a couple of sessions. we can overcome, just not in the way most people associate with the word.

>mfw brother is an existential-humanist psychotherapist.

>all psychoanalytic, deeply bound up with aesthetics

sure but the tarot was drawn before prophetic readings. aesthetics are always remade. fuck campbell. why go in circles until the sun dies out?

>fwiw i'm trying to do the same.

I hope you'll post your riffs. colab being the essence of rhizome etc.

France has a president who was an assistant to budged-Girard(Ricœur).
Americans have just an advisor to the president who knows Girard.

>budget Girard

Triggered. Ricoeur is a philosophical powerhouse. He should be required reading in both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums.

i have promised another user that i would do something Useful today rather than posting, so we may - sadly - have to wrap this one up until later.

>read book of the dead
interesting. specifically for what? not memeing, just want to know

>j-pete/ greener pasture.
really? could be i guess. never thought of it that way, but yeah, i guess.

>girard/ reminding us that we should not forget the cross in our hurry to exit the burning cathedral.
this tho. def this.

pic rel also. makes you think: are we heading for the mirror-caldera, or are we heading away from it? maybe we have to choose a direction, in that sense. with all that that entails.

i prefer *heading for,* obv; but who am i likely to find there? sufis, yes; but RG also.

>the baroque walks thru the symbolist city shines on the hill
right in the feels.

> are memes also not cracks in the simulation?
the mysteriously good ones are, confirming and re-confirming the mystery of how it was they came to be there in the first place

>can ad-copy not also be written to creative ends?
no doubt it can. the desire - the *real* desire - is either there in a thing or it is not, imho, full stop period. the thing wanted to be there and would admit nothing else to stand in its way or otherwise. great art fucks with us & reminds us that we are not quite as beautiful as that. that's a *positive* kind of mimesis: *you might come to resemble this a little bit more than you presently do.* alain de botton, who i am otherwise not so crazy about, did also arrive at a similar insight. it's worth thinking about.

>is the meat-brain not malleable?
it surely is. neuroplastic as all hell, turtles all the way down. but this isn't an argument for relativism; if anything, it's an argument in favor of mouth-drooling radical curiosity and bewilderment in how it is that shit appeared at all.
and perhaps to give some turtles away, once we come to understand how they came to appear there in the first place. nietzsche was right about art: it's all about gratitude.

>it's true you can't "cure" psychic suffering but dragging those demons from the subconscious into focus is therapeutically effective
agreed. you need a *good* therapist tho. i've seen a few. most suck. some are good. therapy is a thing & i believe in it.

>we can overcome, just not in the way most people associate with the word.
yessir

>mfw brother is an existential-humanist psychotherapist
perhaps tell your brother he is fucking awesome plz

>fuck campbell
no way man no way

>why go in circles until the sun dies out?
>implying there is anywhere else to go
>heidegger: the important thing is not to get out of the circle but to come into it in the proper way

>I hope you'll post your riffs
plan to. if i ever complete Please Stop Fucking Doing This To Yourself girardfag Project X i will surely notify Veeky Forums

>colab being the essence of rhizome etc
>D&G
>gygax & arneson
>the chemical brothers
>no end of truth in this one

>Ricoeur is a philosophical powerhouse
Come on user. Both Girard and Ricoeur aren't the type to flashy french po-mos. Their ideas work more from the shadows and aren't Grand Narative enough to stand on their own. I do think that in time their ideas will influence someone big, way more than A-list guys Deluze, Foucault and Lacan.

>interesting. specifically for what?

in the spirit of deleuze, to bring your semiotic lens into the multiple. it's a book of myths and spells that conquer the void of death. what would girard find in a myth/spell that allows the dead to enjoy an opium-beer at the temple with everyone else?

>i prefer *heading for,* obv; but who am i likely to find there? sufis, yes; but RG also.

possibly but as dorian and narcissus, even dear ol' 'arry potter, found out, an isolated at oneself will kill you. do we want to kill humanity, remake it? land and kurzweil do but what would a futurism that doesn't look back look like? I betray myself as an optimist because that excites the shit out of me. although which direction we go doesn't bother me. the deep web awaits in case of a despotic psyche.

>re-confirming the mystery of how it was they came to be there in the first place
>fuck campbell
>no way man no way
>implying there is anywhere else to go

are you sure the circle is the only way to think? to act?

>nietzsche was right about art

tru. but evopsych seems to want to tell us there is a primeval drive and we're stuck in the same gear, helpless to watch as the car plunges over the cosmological cliff. the two seem to be at odds.

>you need a *good* therapist tho

sure but the ability to do that makes me suspicious of evopsych claims.

>gygax & arneson

+ barker. the petal throne, what a guy.

Eliade is more like a historian of religious beliefs and universal religious structures. Girard is more like a theorizer of how and why do religious structures relate to our deep psychological structures.

>Girard's ideas aren't Grand Narratives
You have a lot to catch up on, it seems.

A question I have always asked myself through all those years of reading Girard: can't there be benevolent imitation?

Discuss.

(IMO you're all wasting too much time on the microcosm of money and technoinformation instead of focusing on the macrocosm of scatology. The end of the fucking world is coming! We gotta learn how to proper imitate as soon as possible. Renouncing alone won't save our souls. And is it even possible to fully renounce violence? How can we become saints if not by uncovering the way of divine imitation?)

How can we become artists?

This site obviously.

the 64 million dollar question of questions.

Guys, what do you think about James Alison and Charles Taylor?

>alison
haven't read him. cheers for the rec tho.

>taylor
interesting guy and haven't read enough of him either. a good look for canada's foremost intellectual anyways. i intend to read his book on hegel at some point. sources of the self has been on my list for a while but seems tedious, and yet you would think a narcissistic memecuck like me would be all over that.

see also A Secular Age, which is yet another book i need to get to. too many fucking books.

he's also had some cool collaborations with hubert dreyfus, who is *the* heidegger guy in the US, or so i understand. & dreyfus is cool also.

in general catholic philosophers just seem to be where it's at these days. i don't know if it's because they're the only ones with the range to survive the toxic fallout of death-rattle postmodernity or not, or if just that catholicism as universalism and philosophy have just had a wicked historical bromance. whatever it is it's the least cynical reading around and that's a good look.

basically as i see it there are at least three interesting options on the table.

1) digest capitalism & schizophrenia fully and become a war-machine artist, explode in ecstatic-masochistic schizophrenic rainbows, & Make Spinoza Great Again;

2) leave some room for jesus, intellectually speaking, and philosophize accordingly;

3) become a confucius-style ethicist and work to preserve the cosmic balance of the universe.

there are lots of others ofc. but those all seem pretty legit. anyways, would be interested to hear what other anons think about taylor, or alison.

the Raven Foundation, tho. what a fucking cool name. dem philosophical salvage ops. i'd love to work for those guys.

>Alison
Haven't read him but he looks pretty gay.

>Taylor
His book on Hegel is the greatest synthesis of a philosopher I have ever read - and it's fucking Hegel, for Christ's sake! His perspectives on the nature and origins of the self are extremely absorving if you're into the story of thought-shaping, psycho-symbolic analitics and the Christian perspective as a whole (the primitive and modern aceptions of major concepts such as vocation, destiny, memory etc).

>in general catholic philosophers just seem to be where it's at these days. i don't know if it's because they're the only ones with the range to survive the toxic fallout of death-rattle postmodernity or not, or if just that catholicism as universalism and philosophy have just had a wicked historical bromance. whatever it is it's the least cynical reading around and that's a good look.
That's exactly it.

>basically as i see it there are at least three interesting options on the table.
Well, 1 and 2 are not really self-excludent, you see.

>His book on Hegel is the greatest synthesis of a philosopher I have ever read - and it's fucking Hegel, for Christ's sake! His perspectives on the nature and origins of the self are extremely absorving if you're into the story of thought-shaping, psycho-symbolic analitics and the Christian perspective as a whole (the primitive and modern aceptions of major concepts such as vocation, destiny, memory etc).
that is quite a recommendation. will into this
>fucking hell so many goddamn fucking books to read aaaarr

>Well, 1 and 2 are not really self-excludent, you see.
don't see. not baiting you either, just curious. plz explain senpai

Charles Taylor was a great African warlord. The world will not see the likes of his selfless devotion to money, power, and judiciously chosen ways to inflict suffering for a long time.

holy SHIT. so that's why funding was never a problem at mcgill
>mfw

>don't see. not baiting you either, just curious. plz explain senpai
I'm saying we are at the edge of history and if you can mantain an apocalyptical imaginary it will not be hard to see in which way there is room for a post-modern hermeneutic of Christianity. Even semi-hacks like Vattimo have noticed this. I'm saying there is benevolent imitation, just as there's benevolent irony (and Jesus had the greatest taste for irony!). We don't have to denounce commodity-schizophrenia in favor of the Christian experience nor vice-versa.

Girard was right about Nietzsche after all: he really was a visionare - though deeply anguished - closet-Christian.

so fucking into this. so much so.

my whole thing is art. i'm all fucked up over it. but i mean the more i wreak this insane, demented, never-ending fucking nightmare-child out of myself the more i come to appreciate catholicism more and more.

no doubt i have gotten here through the Back Channels and then some. in all of my reading i never really had a super-hegel experience, and in my IRL life or background very little encounter at all with either Christianity or Catholicism. i was much too fedora for that
>and am still a weird subspecies of fedora now

but i mean i just increasingly feel that one of the issues is cynicism. this is confirmed and reconfirmed in 20m different ways in continental philosophy: by zizek, by slotetdijk, by baudrillard, by land, by nietzsche, by deleuze, by absolutely fucking everybody. by peterson, in his way also. by all of them.

i mean hardened nietzscheans will shit on us for this but nietzsche is fucking leading me somewhere i didn't expect to go. when i started this project years ago the one thing i was sure was *not* going to be in it was religion. and now that's fucking all i think about. mostly through guys who the church has Problems with: chardin, for instance. or blake.

i like the tao also, and very muchly. and as much as i would like to simultaneously play for every team in town - as my posts indicate - that's basically impossible and keeps me driven downwards into very strange, silly, painful, and bizarre loops.

>if you can mantain an apocalyptical imaginary
yeah.

>We don't have to denounce commodity-schizophrenia in favor of the Christian experience nor vice-versa
the things this shit will do to your perceptions tho. right?

>Girard was right about Nietzsche after all: he really was a visionare - though deeply anguished - closet-Christian.
the tragic mode of perception is that thing & reveals myth. girardian religious theory - if he is right - does the same for religion. i don't know how i'm going to work out my mad mad love for deleuze w/a growing interest in hegel but...well, it's just interesting af to think about.

thanks for the cool post, user. benevolent imitation, eh? hmm.

>can't there be benevolent imitation?

fuck. i think i have an idea:

it's humility. that's the answer. or part of it. you have to assume that the person you are imitating is smarter, more complex, wiser, more Positive Quality X whatever than you.

meme: presuming you are so much smarter.
meme: presuming the other sees things exactly the same way you do.
meme: presuming the other can't possibly see things the way you do, and so infinitely going mental.

not meme: *assuming* the intelligence of the other and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are smarter than you. assuming that they already know what you are going to tell them, but knowing that you still have to say it anyways, &c, but they also know this.

does that not make sense? the problem ofc is that if you do this you may wind up not wanting to say anything for fear of looking stupid.
>a very real danger

but you have to begin with the presumption of not only intelligence but also superior intelligence. you have to *salute* the other person, in a way, and appeal to that which *you cannot presume is not in fact there.*

baudrillard talks about this: simulation is pretending you have something you don't, dissimulation is pretending you dont have something you do. okay. so what is this other category then? that is:

what happens when you simulate the *other* person having something because you cannot be sure that they do not know that they have it?

so a positive mimesis would be a reverse-simulation: you have to start with, perhaps, the presumption that the other is capable of dissimulating at a level higher than you are capable of simulating. something like that.

this is directly related to the story i am writing, which is all about telepathy & its discontents, fwiw.

>tfw you will surely sound crazy now & should be working on writing instead of shitposting.
>but still tho

>tfw you get excited because for some reason you were not aware that the concept of improvisation already existed
>tfw mildly embarrassed
>tfw will retreat in shame

improvisation, yo. actors working together, creatively, spontaneously. with something more interesting than just What Did He Mean By This going on. that's all i mean to say, i think.

Empathy is the main lesson I often get from reading fiction. Just being able to get out of myself and humbling myself towards Other's experiences by accumulating narratives and interconnecting them. Absorbing that mythopoetical sense of universality that fiction transpires.

I mean, I'm still narcissistic af (in the Lavellian sense of the word) but fiction gradually teachs us to listen to what Everything is saying (fuck, does It speak! If you pay close attention It is nothing but endless talk), and that's a moral improvement no doubt.

Maybe fiction is the cure (and I mean fiction in the broader sense of the word - music is fiction in it's on right, or at least a virtual simulation of being-through-fiction, and cinema, and theater and so on).

It's this intricate web of Life, you know?, people talking to each other, people loving each other and hating each other. Learning how to admire that. Seeing the subtle patterns of intention when you're having a conversation. Getting to the deep point of a friend's personality. Laughing like a maniac. Loving your parents. The Great Architecture of Life. Have you ever read Julián Marías?

That's some good insight. For example, what is improvisation when you really think about it? Like, on an ontological level? It's a type of freedom, it's uncuffing from habits - dasein -, but it is also a state of mild/flexible/responsible schizophrenia.