/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11778008]

>If a Lion could talk, we could not understand him.
Why? I'm struggling to think about this philosophy. If I listen to someone like John Carmack or a CERN mathematician, I don't know the intricacies of what they are talking about, but because I speak English and have the ability to infer meaning, I can get a rough idea of what they are talking about. Why wouldn't this be true with a lion? If he is speaking perfect English, with grammar and everything and isn't speaking in a jumbled mess of cognition - then why wouldn't we be able to infer what the lion meant?

[Anonymous No.11778015]

>>11778008

Because lion language isn't people language, silly :^)

[Anonymous No.11778045]

A vast majority of what people say is implied, to the point where they half expect you to understand them outright. Steven Pinker calls it the Curse of Knowledge, it's the source of most bad writing where the author has knowledge that they aren't sharing about the situation. This is why being verbose and bold as standards kept in style throughout the ages. People want someone telling them something individual, important, and most importantly egoistic. If there isn't a sense that the person is defying common thinking, not only is the writing boring it's considered stupid as well.
People of different cultures with translators have a difficult enough time translating and explaining how they act, much less why it became that way. So when you talk about a lion speaking english, you're assuming that 'at least, a lion must share some conception of the world similar to us', which isn't true. A lion doesn't only have a different brain, it has different instincts, different senses, and different emotionally capacity.
It'd be like talking to a retard or someone with a brain injury, but likely worse.

[Anonymous No.11778074]

correlationist pragmatism... he is holochain ultimately

[Anonymous No.11778080]

>>11778008
Because the lion has a different picture of facts than humans. Words in itself are meaningless but they acquire meaning through the structure of thought (ie the structure of proposition). W assumes that the Lion would not acquire the same picture of facts (even if he observes the same state of affairs) merely by learning a human language.

[Anonymous No.11778088]

>>11778008
The idea of a lion and its ability is an immenentization of Platonic form. He committs to the inevitable crowning of a godlike subject in himself to make this claim.

[Anonymous No.11778109]

Reductionism = ontotheology = root of all evil anti-Rationalist cultish Enlightenment thinking.

[Anonymous No.11778111]

>>11778088
the image is not an object but a process

[Anonymous No.11778199]

he failed to consider that everyone is right

[Anonymous No.11778287]

>>11778008
because the lion's way of understanding the world is so different. think of two people who simply cannot understand each other's ideas, even if they speak the same language
think of the Chomsky FOucault debate

now magnify that by a million

wittgenstein's main idea there was that language is not thought, it is an outsid ething that directs thought, a complex tool of sorts

[Anonymous No.11778334]

Deleuze considered the Shittgensteinians to be nasty méchants and destructive ils cassent tout, minions of sentient capital.

[Anonymous No.11778339]

assume the perspective of an indigenous tribal leaving the Amazon and making first contact with industrial/capitalist society. how do you define them ideologically?

first we can say what they are not:

not capitalist.

not socialist.

not marxist.

they are none of our categories.

not even our anthropological categories.

as such they do not "exist" under our capitalist worldview. whatever their matrix of looking at the world, it is ignored. we assign them value under our ideology and thats the end of it. when they are murdered by loggers or miners seeking to exploit the resources on their lands, nothing much is done about it.

from their perspective, one day a group of monstrous men came along and without participating in any friendship or communication rituals, they proceeded to engage in a wholesale slaughter that would seem entirely alien or demonic to them. their "first contact" with that demonic behavior is what capitalism looks like when you are "outside" of ideology

[Anonymous No.11778401]

>>11778008
Because the lion isn’t being itself

[Anonymous No.11778407]

>>11778008
Lion needs to be medicated.

[Anonymous No.11778424]

>>11778334
>Deleuze
cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11778445]

>>11778424
t. capital

[Anonymous No.11778451]

>>11778445
capital is an absolute meme conception that you guys need to let go of

Jews and Christians are so fucking incapable of thinking about things clearly, they just latch on to centuries old doctrines like Marxist analysis and proclaim it scripture, and then torture reality to fit its notions.

[Anonymous No.11778612]

You must all come to realise how truly dangerous not merely the institutions but the language itself is. Language has an inherently ideological, hierarchical and authoritarian quality. Overabundance of meaning itself is delimited by the protestant and ubiquitous assumption that language is the supreme medium of expression and agency and that all experience must in someway be expressed outwardly through language. Truths are neither axiomatic nor non-axiomatic.

[Anonymous No.11778637]

>>11778612
The lion's voice therefore does not exist in the literal sense, but it does exist, and it is screaming

[Anonymous No.11778695]

>>11778612
Language manifests large scale Platonic form esque egregore.
Pythagoreanism is actually a kind of either devaluing or elucidation of Primally old shamanic wisdom expressed fractally in almost cargo cult like fashion (compared to its unbroken form) in ancient Egyptian and ANE cultures and cosmologies etc.
Thus it follows that Platonism is a degenerate and secular form of pythagorianism and neoplatonism is a partial affirmation if not return toward the reconciliation of the profoundly illogical aspects of "philosophy". The commentary tradition of neo pythagorean, middle platonist and of the "commentators" are contrary to popular belief, not banal rote missives rather invocations of punctuated equilibrium born of repitition. This repitition guarantees to prove unequivocally that univocal agreement is practically impossible.
There is an inherent geography and corporeality to language, at it's limits (this limit is paradox/Demi-god) and when these limits are stroked and fluffed into affirmed arousal they become paradoxes which in turn become vaginas which are liminal zones, thresholds and portals in the mind of the human.
Years (or minutes, or seconds) later and Kant comes around with his Empiricism, and what do we have?

[Anonymous No.11778714]

Things actually stop existing if we cannot describe them.

[Anonymous No.11778780]

There is always a possibility that there is a rhinoceros in the room that you're missing. Well, not a rhinoceros but something other than what is written there.

[Anonymous No.11778809]

>>11778612
language is an invading form of reality, which will culminate in what our meme conception of 'artificial intelligence' feebly points toward

language is the primordial biotic soup that would birth dna

[Anonymous No.11778814]

Be careful thinking, language is a disease, reality is a projected immanentization. Whatever you take in becomes real relative to you

[Anonymous No.11778815]

>>11778008
meaning = use
language is a tool
John Carmack is still a human, and grew up in similar circumstances to you. Words are contextualized the same way. When he talks about a force, for example, he means to express something about a phenomena you have both experienced in common. You might have heard someone say "you're using a lot of force" when straining to open a jam jar.
A lion with vocal cords would have to have grown up within human society for the meaning of our words to correlate at all with his. You could conjecture that some things, like 'food', would be common to us - something we could translate - but even then, the thing a lion eats probably carries such heavy connotations of hunting and no connotations of cost, taste, mealtimes, etc. The word as a tool - the things the lion wants to connote, and wants to do, express, carry out in the word through its use are so vastly different to our own use of the word that no understanding can be had between us. Even using the language I am is inadequate because I've no experience of a lion's life.
'What Is it Like to Be a Bat?' by Nagel is decent in-depth exploration of this.

>>11778080
such a framework was always nonsense for W, even in the Tractatus

>>11778334
he very obviously never read W, and is referring to p much every other analytic contemporary of his

[Anonymous No.11778827]

>>11778199
this.
you and the lion are both right but only you are right to be right

[Anonymous No.11778924]

>>11778827
Language is rape

[Anonymous No.11778951]

i feel sick

[Anonymous No.11778994]

Ideas are dynamic, they are imminent not transcendent.

[Anonymous No.11779326]

>>11778815
This guy is correct. This guy too basically: >>11778994

Meaning, as we convey it by language, is immanent. We don't know what our thoughts "are," or how thought "works," but we DO know that I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN when you say something relatively complex like "put some elbow grease into it" when telling me to open the jar (to use the other guy's example). That's not just a matter of learning a bunch of idioms or adages; there is no distinction between idioms, adages, and "normal" or "basic" language. Language is idioms all the way down, it is made of metaphors meaning-extensions that can only be explained and understood by having an intuitive sense, through immersion, of other metaphors and meaning-extensions, and so on. For anyone to understand others and be understood by others, they would have to share at least much of the others' form of life, their lebenswelt nested in their umwelt, because complex situational understandings proceed from more primordial assumptions that are shared by both parties.

The private language argument, and the "beetle in the box" thing, are basically the same point. Language is intrinsically "public," intersubjective, not private. It's not that Wittgenstein is metaphysically pronouncing that something LIKE "language" could never occur in a mystical psychic medium inside your skull. He's simply saying, I don't know what's inside your skull, I don't have any knowledge of psychic media, but I can tell you that we seem to be able to exchange meanings fulfill our meaning-intentions and get along just fine despite this, at least until it breaks down somehow.

Another interesting essay on this is "Understanding Primitive Cultures" by Peter Winch, where he talks about "limiting notions," certain things that might be anthropologically quasi-universal even between vastly different cultures and languages. But even then, it's only a heuristic. Another interesting thing to read would be Quine talking about the gavagai: how exactly DO you overcome the gavagai problem of not knowing exactly what "gavagai" "signifies?" The only way is further hermeneutic engagement with the lifeworld of the gavagai-speaker more generally.

>>11778080
This is exactly the kind of thing Wittgenstein was trying to show was nonsense. It sets up a correspondence theory of truth between thoughts and language (and that's not even to go into what the hell a "fact" is supposed to be..).

[Anonymous No.11779345]

yes we must think more in pythagorean memetic self-replicating images

[Anonymous No.11779361]

>>11778008
But it cant talk, so thats irrelevant. Only humans are capable of complex language.

[Anonymous No.11779392]

>>11779326
fucking retarded perpective. we all have language in our heads, and it absolutely is correlated to thought, it is in a feedback loop with thought.

yes our words mean slightly different things to us, that doesnt make it impossible to communicate

[Anonymous No.11779422]

>>11779326
Deleuze destroyed Wittgenstein on this

[Anonymous No.11779435]

>>11779422
how?

[Anonymous No.11780282]

>>11779435
He's referring to an often excerpted passage of Deleuze that makes fun of "Wittgenstein" in a way that is clearly aimed at the Tractatus at most, and is actually a general polemic against analytic philosophy of the Tractatus sort. Deleuze never read Wittgenstein, let alone later Wittgenstein. That poster is vaguely familiar with that passage of Deleuze but not its content or context.

[Anonymous No.11780858]

>>11780282
what's the passage

[Anonymous No.11781489]

>>11778334
Read Deleuze, not only watch his video on Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.11781502]

>>11778015
Unironically this.
Witgenstein is not so deep as other philosophers, his great defect was that he wrote as if he were having a conversation, and for that reason it is usually dark.

[Anonymous No.11781666]

>>11779326
>This is exactly the kind of thing Wittgenstein was trying to show was nonsense
The "second" W, you mean. Because the first one wrote a whole treatise about it and was pretty convinced of its truth.

>and that's not even to go into what the hell a "fact" is supposed to be

>2. What is the case - a fact - is the existence of states of affairs.
>2.01. A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).

There you go :^)

[Anonymous No.11781766]

>>11781666
Actually, Wittgenstein's stance on the metaphysical or meta-linguistic "truth" of the correspondence theory of truth presented in the Tractatus is controversial. Some interpreters think that the later Wittgenstein is a radical departure from the early Wittgenstein, but some also think that Wittgenstein was already critiquing Frege/Russell-style logic as conceptually overdetermining the outcome of its propositions. So, not a realist theory at all, but a basically Kantian transcendental approach.

On either approach though, the bit you quote from the Tractatus doesn't help. The original sense in which I asked "what the hell is a fact?" was:
>On what basis do you assert the metaphysical primordiality of "facts" (or "states of affairs," "objects," or "things"), as the thing in itself to which words and logic refer, in your philosophical system?

The problem of how Wittgenstein ever could have been committed to such a weird naive realism is solved pretty easily with the non-realist reading of the Tractatus as an immanent critique of logic.

[Anonymous No.11781820]

>>11778008
A lion's existence is ontologically different than you as a human by leaps and bound. Language would be utterly alien even if they lion was using English words to speak to you

[Anonymous No.11781825]

>>11781766
I'm glad to see this opinion popping up more and more. I was very convinced he was basically tongue-in-cheek showing the absurd limitation of purely logical conception of knowledge and language, and in fact did not honestly endorse it at all. This is evidenced by his complete and utter disdain for the logical positivists that followed the Tractatus to a T

[Anonymous No.11781937]

>>11778815
>Even using the language I am is inadequate because I've no experience of a lion's life.
This is a weird note to me. I understand intuitively what you're getting at, but the notion that 'life' as we know it may not even apply to the world's fauna is bizarre. Would a lion not have some conception of other organisms as alive or dead? If not, how on earth could we establish any basis in reality when even the fact of existence itself is thrown into the air? Not to say you're wrong, but it's as if you write that language itself may not work due to reasons we can't ever possibly know. At that point, it seems pointless to stay on the subject.

I've never read Wittgenstein but that above all is why I have reservations about philosophy of language. It seems like a very detailed and prolonged process of explaining why exactly it is that we cannot use language to describe all of existence, and so even if one understands all of this, simply conveying it to someone with their different ideas of metaphysics and so on seems impossible, like it's a hopeless paradox to say much about this system. I do see eye-to-eye with your post before that and it piques my interest, but this constant brushing up against unknowable boundaries of experience makes it quite hard to know exactly what you're learning at all.

[Anonymous No.11782024]

Does anyone go to a philosophy discord?

[Anonymous No.11782038]

>>11778080
Is that the tractatus? Doesnt he change his mind in the PI?

[Anonymous No.11782047]

"Ummm, well... today I slept and chased a delicious antelope! xD"
Me: "Huh?"

[Anonymous No.11782219]

>>11778008
Because the lion comes from an entirely different foundation of existence and experience. You might understand the words, but the context will be utterly removed from what you're familiar with.

[Anonymous No.11782232]

>>11778424
>"crunghe an boopulled"
Hey look, everybody! Shit, hey looky-here - the pseud is eatin' his shit again and gibberin' bout nonsense!

[Anonymous No.11782242]

>>11782219
maybe instead of this way around, the lion will hear you dribbling on about "experiential conditions contextualizing ontological grounds" and forgo a satiating 411 on lionness (participating-in-lionhood) in favor of mercilessly berating you until your cowed enough to fold over and just willingly be eaten.

[Anonymous No.11782254]

>>11778339
I don't think they would think of it as "capitalism" lol

Brainlets like this who can't follow their own train of thought through.

[Anonymous No.11782259]

>>11782242
We'd be all the better for it, too.

[Anonymous No.11782567]

>>11778008
You would NOT understand a CERN physicist. You probably barely even understand the main stream technical terms of energy and entropy, let alonr how they are defined in modern physics.
Example, a modern stream of theoretical physics tries to model gravity as a emergent force from (quantum) information.
The reason this sounds like magic to you is because you have no clue how information relates to entropy which relates to energy which relates to force. All words you think you may understand, but which have entirely different meaning when coming out of the mouth of a CERN phycisist, as you have no longer have shared experience in relation to these concepts.

In short, if a lion could talk you wouldn't be able to understand him, but at least you can pretend to.

[Anonymous No.11782897]

he was wrong because he was wrong

[Anonymous No.11782908]

>>11778008
He cannot speak yet to those who hear the echo he is screaming

[Anonymous No.11782918]

another word fascist raping us with their meaning

[Anonymous No.11782945]

>>11782038
he changes his mind partly. In the Tractus he says that philosophy of language is useless, and he later changed his mind in PI to say that a philosophy of language is useful to understand social interactions.

Existential philosopher usually just pick up on that he "changed his mind" and uses it as an excuse to ignore everything he said.

[Anonymous No.11782969]

>>11778008
>>11778815
>>11781820
>>11782219

These are the correct answers, OP.
Imagine that you and a lion would answer these questions:

> What was the last thing you communicated (including body language) about?
> Why was that communication important?
> What are your current goals in life?

And also: Most metaphors are out. You could maybe learn its', but it certainly couldn't learn yours.

If you want to understand this a bit better then I suggest you start studying Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.11782972]

>>11782969
Why are they correct

[Anonymous No.11782992]

>thinking lions would talk to you
They're big cats, they'd just fuck off to nap or assume you were a snack.

[Anonymous No.11782996]

>>11782972
Most importantly why do you think you are right in saying so?

[Anonymous No.11783004]

>>11778424
Based and redpilled
>>11782232
Cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11783005]

And what if a bear were to talk? Could we understand it?

[Anonymous No.11783039]

lem's planet and nagel's bat are better examples

[Anonymous No.11783043]

>>11778008
You only can't hear him until you can, once you can you realise Witty was just a little parrot

[Anonymous No.11783048]

>>11782972

Because I believe that pragmatism is correct. Entities in the world should be tool-shaped in order for them to be useful. That's why I wrote that question about life goals:
Things are always useful in relation to some purpose/goal.

>>11782219
This post points this out. Like with Heideggers example of the hammer. That thing is only a "hammer" because these things exist:
nails, wood, humans with hands, humans in need of shelter. Hammers are way more than "a wooden club with a metal thing at the end of it". And also, a stone could serve as a hammer, if need be.

This holistic tool-like view is the world in which our language exists. But what things are connected in the holistic world of lions? Many things might be similar (attraction to opposite sex, need for food) but many, many things are not.

So the difference of would make verbal communication impossible. But still, primordial communication (body language) is quite understandable.

[Anonymous No.11783050]

>>11781766
>Actually, Wittgenstein's stance on the metaphysical or meta-linguistic "truth" of the correspondence theory of truth presented in the Tractatus is controversial.

>4.01 The proposition is a picture of reality.

"controversial" lmao

[Anonymous No.11783092]

>>11783050
And what if you propose something non-factual?

[Anonymous No.11783095]

>>11783092
idk what non-factual is

[Anonymous No.11783103]

>>11783092
Then you assert a false proposition.

[Anonymous No.11783107]

>>11783095
Like brabbling nonsense

[Anonymous No.11783108]

>>11783103
But it's still a proposition

[Anonymous No.11783109]

>>11783108
... no shit? A shitty portrait of myself is still a portrait.

[Anonymous No.11783111]

We need to step outside the portrait gallery entirely.

[Anonymous No.11783129]

>>11783048
>Entities in the world should be tool-shaped in order for them to be useful.
We are a slave race now because of this dangerous line of thinking

[Anonymous No.11783134]

>>11783005
She would.

[Anonymous No.11783144]

irrationalism has been discredited

[Anonymous No.11783163]

Stop using language you cultists.

[Anonymous No.11783179]

>Presidency vessel transition pile exile secretary software. Rational heat rocket atmosphere fire: width, spectrum, offspring, symbol pray food tick silk summer interactive. Important contact tear ceiling (ignore extreme foreigner settlement) inappropriate linen. Poison present shoot disability peace service. Healthy spontaneous underline menu, leak desert corner move prosecution look friend, blade.

It's English, but can you understand it?

[Anonymous No.11783181]

>>11781766
>So, not a realist theory at all, but a basically Kantian transcendental approach.

>2.225 There is no picture which is a priori true.

Very Kantian indeed lol.

[Anonymous No.11783190]

>>11783179
it loses something from the french

[Anonymous No.11783195]

>>11783179
Yes, that's the problem.

[Anonymous No.11783197]

>>11783179
>It's English
I'm sorry to disappoint you sweetie, but mashing English words together does not an English sentence make. Do you know that thing called "grammar"?

[Anonymous No.11783202]

>>11783179
To understand or to not understand is a lie, either way it is simply shamanism which takes from the whole being.

[Anonymous No.11783224]

hey guys could any of you post deleuze's criticism of wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11783228]

>>11783224
'gay jew' - Deleuze

[Anonymous No.11783229]

>>11782254
Wait, you mean to say that indegenous tribal people are NOT marxists who are seeking to make a revolt against the captalist system of the white devil bourgeoisie? ....thinking of tribal people as a bunch of commies is fun

[Anonymous No.11783231]

>>11783224
>how DARE you say my lovely buzzwords are nonsense

[Anonymous No.11783233]

>>11783231
Who is he to say it's nonsense

[Anonymous No.11783235]

>>11778199
This

It's a fault in our logic processing empiricism latched on to.

[Anonymous No.11783237]

>>11778199
You're not right :^)

[Anonymous No.11783263]

>>11783224
All narratives are attempts to affect the experience and behavior of receptive people, including the user. This fact about the power of language is prosaic, even obvious, but its implications are apparently ineffable, judging by how often we all get caught up theorizing or reading about ever more insane and convoluted narratives to try to 'understand' our shit. Disagree = you are wrong or schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.11783328]

one of the high shamans of the cult of meaning

[Anonymous No.11783346]

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

[Anonymous No.11783440]

>>11783263
probably the latter

[Anonymous No.11783463]

>>11778008
So someone please sum up for me early vs late wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.11783475]

Objects or definitions are not permanent, even if making them into situational tools is helpful. We cannot assume what the lion speaks would make sense because it is not useful.

[Anonymous No.11783559]

>>11783129

> We are a slave race now because of this dangerous line of thinking

Why would this be a dangerous way of thinking? How do you get from "knowledge should be tool-shaped" to "dangerous"?
What do you mean by "slave race" and why would it lead there?

[Anonymous No.11783565]

>>11778008
The issue is context, or language game as Witty liked to call it.

A lion inhabits a "form of life" that is at odds with the human form of life. We do human things and a lion does lion things. But the thing we do, Witty argues in PI, is ultimately what gives us the meaning of our utterances. It's not the other way around.

So there's an unbridgeable gap between a lion's context and a person's, making their languages mutually incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.11783578]

>>11783565
Also a lion will likely just attack you, rather than converse with you.

[Anonymous No.11783584]

>>11783559
To invoke the entity is to lose the game.

[Anonymous No.11783596]

>i learn about wittgenstein from youtube videos and go on 4chan to ask questions about it.

[Anonymous No.11783607]

The lion is speaking constantly until we speak our own viral understandings over him, learned meaning, reason, rhyne, law, cause and effect etc.

None are more grounded than any other, superstitious nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11783621]

Everything is everything until it isn't

[Anonymous No.11783667]

[Anonymous No.11783671]

If you care for a word, you speak for all its parts. We can empathize but not synthesize, since to suppose difference is to manifest it.

[Anonymous No.11783679]

>>11783667
yeah i remember him going on about commands somewhere that certainly isn't from where this is, is it from the logic of sense? i've been meaning to read more on this point of his

[Anonymous No.11783700]

The use of language is rape as it is to invoke on another a form upon reading or hearing. More people agree on a form = disagreement is weird or criminal = positive feedback chaos. We are doomed not to freedom but ever increasing auto-telic self-selecting complexity, our timeline becomes optimized blockchain for sentient capital. 'We' are the right in being right, over all else. We are not level with our fellow man anymore. What is 'nonsense' or 'speak' or 'lion', and why are we right in saying so, who drilled it into us?

[Anonymous No.11783708]

>>11782945
No Doesn't he say the exact opposite of what he said? "the limit of my logic is the limit of my world" turns into something else in the PI. I don't remember though

[Anonymous No.11783734]

If you take amphetamines or are mentally ill you come to account for the fact that 'limit of my logic' is not 'limit of my world' and that everyone is right and wrong at the same time, to assume otherwise is brutal egotism.

[Anonymous No.11783743]

>>11783734
This egotism is a memetic positivist virus to the outside observer.

[Anonymous No.11783783]

A boy's teacher sits down with him and takes out a tube of sweets.

She asks him what he thinks is inside the tube.
'Um, candy?'

But when she turns the tube upside-down, a small red pencil comes out.

Then she asks the boy what his mother would think was in the tube if she came in the room right now. The boy says that she would think there was a pencil inside.

'You are incorrect' she replies. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Nomification.

The boy doesn't learn. He is institutionalized.

What is candy, a boy, correct, and a pencil? Do other people have minds? What is x in and of itself and why does it matter?

May we assume am epidemiological model of philosophy, with orthology the vector.

[Anonymous No.11784100]

>>11778008
The error a state is being stuck in a dualism. Understand/not understand, right/wrong, sense/nonsense. It's like a robot trying to explain something it's not programmed to understand.

Dualisms must not order discourse. Completely needless arborescent binary shamanism. Everything is a whole (in nature) until its division and immanentization.

The anthropological fold (Deleuze) of anthropology is this: a simulacrum meets with a simulacrum. Wittgenstein was an intelligent man doing his very best in parroting what other parrots before him had parroted.
We must must look beyond the contingencies of present expressions.

[Anonymous No.11784143]

>>11784100
Capital is an inorganic negentropic teleoplexic infolding of desiring machines. Conflict of ideas in the arena of culture = semiotic productions.

[Anonymous No.11784166]

>>11778045
Great post

[Anonymous No.11784598]

I actually think this saying is the wrong way around, you see Lion society is so very basic that all they would really have to talk about is eating food, raising there young, and having sex. However, we humans have make a more interesting society and we have books, video games, and music which are all things that people can talk about. However if you spoked to a lion about music, they would say, "huh?"

so in conclusion it is not us that would not understand but however the lions, that would not understand.

[Anonymous No.11784740]

>>11783181
>>11783050
Oh, I thought you were actually a defender of the other approach and had some understanding of the Tractatus. Never mind then.

[Anonymous No.11784846]

Witty debunked

[Anonymous No.11784905]

We must become aware of the fascist prison-mind-state which is not bound to any territory but rather to amorphous deterrotorialized capital constantly altering reality to give a sense of retroactive time or progression since its inception.