/lit/ - Literature

>>12000180
>once you have worked that out, why could you not go whatever way you choose, even politics? that would be the path of the philosopher-king, no?
mi amigo if you have worked out these questions then wherever you do go you go with the blessing of the Department of Speculative Economics and Cosmotech in general. nobody has the high card on self-discovery. you absolutely know things that i do not, especially as they pertain to you. if politics is where you feel your calling, then perhaps that is where you have to be. it's not my calling, but...well, you get the idea. there is just a kind of inner battle to be fought with cynicism and suspicion that i am interested in. after that, how things shake out are how they shake out.

>When I initially read this I thought it sounded patronizing, because I was reminded of how parents might tell a child that they were "special in their own way" whenever they had an obvious disability or handicap.
you know what i mean. it is true, in a sense. but contemporary Snowflake-itis is a disease, and a highly dangerous one as well. it leads to the tyranny of the unhinged. it's no accident that we have gotten here, and Deleuze matters in that sense. much that is discusssed in continental theory is a question about *from where we take our cues about normativity from.* German Fascism is on the one hand intensely normative, and yet it is also monstrously destructive. the Soviets also. and, to some degree, the global capitalism we have today, which is bad for the psyche, the environment, and much else. everything you see on the news today proceeds from this sense of a paradox of the intransigent minority. it's why, to some degree, Max Schizo is no longer the way forward. Sanity > Barbarism. it's not like this is news, it's just that we have had to get to Peak Irony and Unironic Madness perhaps before we could begin to theorize an alternative. some sanity, and less barbarism, madness, cruelty, irony, sadomasochism, waste and faux-aristocrat squandering is called for. this is hardly surprising.

>Would a sage want to be?
depends on the sage, really. sages are by their nature unique. the Taoist sages tend to want to keep to themselves. and yes, of course, hermitage is indeed cozy, but it's also lonely (and cold). and, you know, bears, dysentery, the rest. the Unabomber, for example, is a test case of hermitage being done the *wrong* way. i've read his manifesto, ofc. Land likes him too. there's no arguing with it, modernity is a fucking problem. but Terror-Hermits are a bad scene, obv.

REI KOZ is interesting too, in his way, no question. i don't follow his Aryanism any more than icycalm's Nietzscheanism. but i certainly can't say that they make for *boring* reading. i'm not as Inspired as either of those guys, but they're both interesting af, no doubt.