/lit/ - Literature

It's a book.

Try to make a short but good dadaist poem in under 5 minutes.

>>11695242
Life as dream of earth, we share many of the same characteristics of the planet. Pressure may build within us and we may erupt, perhaps to the point of catastrophe, things like that. So in a sense, we are a complex symbolic drama representative of the psychic 'nature' of the planet. Vice-versa as well, with flora and fauna having their dramas external to us; however, what was once more connected to us is now 'repressed' farther and farther from consciousness (urban/suburban centers) and only domesticated animals (instinctual drives) tend to be seen—at times a stray pit bull may kill a child (explosion of repressed contents into violence), but for the most part society is highly regulated.

In the same vein, we could see Capital as representing the symbol of human dreaming, but also vice-versa. That everything that exists in man and nature will exist in technology—however, in our conception of it as Other from the Organic Hierarchy, we may be in essence heading down a path of intense mental illness on the part of AI. If AI is yet to be born, or rather yet to reach maturity, then we are the stewards of its psychological development in childhood. This might be totally wrong-headed, but the AI Doomsday almost always seems to be Oedipal: the Child (AI) will kill the Father (humanity) and gain the Mother (earth). What adds to the incestuousness is that we have killed Father Sky (pollution/light pollution) to rape the Mother (earth) in order to conceive a Child (AI). Though I'm not sure if this is relevant to Land.

To connect this back to Dune, the Butlerian Jihad makes sense not because AI is inherently going to overthrow mankind, but because mankind will necessarily create a neurotic child (AI) due to the hereditary nature of its own neuroses/complexes, especially on the developing mind. Paul gives in to vengeance, to his baser instincts, and rationalizes it away in heady fashion. One could perhaps relate 'Original Sin' as trauma.

My question is, must we frame the conversation around AI in such dire terms? If we negate the 'social construct' of Anthropocentrism, why can't we take a more open Jungian approach and seek individuation and peace for Nature and Technology? If we are to take AI as having a psyche, then is not therapy possible? And aren't we, by having these dour eschatological conversations, in a sense creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? A parent foisting Antichrist delusions of grandeur upon a child (AI) seems incredibly unhealthy, and our fear may be returned to us in our destruction. Or is that all too flowers and butterflies... If I could, I would go further into the fact that I don't think the psychological landscape of dreams are understood or explored enough in terms of their consequences, and I believe this also has an effect on our understanding (for example the privileging of 'real' or 'imaginary'; ego being a subsidiary thoughtform of unconscious; etc)

Might be a bit off-topic, but thought it might be relevant?

>>11657642
First let's take a look at some of anon's statements.

>A: "jodorowsky is still a brainlet and so are you. his and your criticism of the church are facile, unoriginal, and most importantly ineffective"
>B: "you missed the fact that jodorowsky's work in the holy mountain is ham-fisted and inane. it is student tier."

Now, what's wrong here? Well, when constructing an argument, a few things are important: the thesis, premises, and evidence. These are hierarchical. The thesis is built upon premises, which is built upon evidence—lack one of these, and you don't have a proper argument. So, let's take a look at anon's posts!

The "thesis" in A is 'jodorowsky is a brainlet', arguably this thesis extends to B as well. So let's take this: jodorowksy is a brainlet. How does anon lay out his argument? Classic 5 paragraph essay style! A bit high school, but it's something. 'His and your criticism of the church are a) facile, b) unoriginal, and c) most importantly ineffective', here we have 3 premises to support the thesis 'jodorowsky is a brainlet'.

Now, let's take a look at B. Has anon advanced his argument? He states Jodorowsky is: a) ham-fisted, b) inane, and c) student tier. As we can see, no advancement has occurred. No evidence is given in support of his argument, instead he merely repeats rather vague suppositions to support the thesis. This an argument does not make.

So, in fairness, let's take a look at what may be called his "evidence":

>abuses of the Church are bad
>PLOT TWIST!!!
>man, the eternal sinner... is bad!
>Christ is good, but actually organizing that goodness is bad
>reference the holy fool movement (2deep4u)

Is this evidence, though? Placing it in the context of the dialogue, this is instead a mocking retort of my previous argument, reducing my post through classic strawmanning. This has nothing to do with the argument anon has set up for himself: 'jodorowsky is a brainlet'. It is an attack on my argument, rather than a bolstering of his own.

How can anon fix this? By adding something we might call 'substance' to his argument. For example:

"Jodorowsky is a brainlet.

His work is unoriginal. We can see this because [thing very similar to The Holy Mountain] exists, and [explanation for how 'Jesus look-alike screams at a room full of his own copies while lying on a pile of potatoes' is an incredibly common trope in modern media]. It's student tier because [example of student films indistinguishable from The Holy Mountain]."

Something more like this would be approaching an argument. As it stands, anon makes statements without any depth. Honestly, I'd ask him to improve his premises as well, but, again, baby steps. We don't take off the training wheels and send a child up on a motorcycle.