u/oohoollow

So they often criticize starting from 0, starting over, turning a new leaf, wiping the slate clean, establishing new foundations.

Is the mistake drug users make always to start over again from

ground zero, either going on the drug again or quitting, when what they

should do is make it a stopover, to start from the "middle," bifurcate from

the middle?

But what does this practically entail? It's easy to see practically what starting from Zero entails, it's about saying "we can't control the past but we can control the future" and this always fails. SO what does starting from the middle mean? Does it mean looking at what is happening in the past and continuing the processes that are already happening? I mean we already do that by very nature of exisiting. We constantly just continue processes alrady underway. SO what does it mean to situate yourself in the middle practically?

As a person who doesn't read all that much, whenever I discover a really good book, my mind is blown by how much it puts to shame all my other previous media consumption (for lack of a better term). But then turning around to talk to people, like for example Twitter or other social media, it's like everything goes back to square one, because on platforms like that, everyone communicates on the same level playing field, meaning that people who've read hundreds of books and people who've read none are all supposed to be communicating with each other. So how does that feel, to have to communicate with a world that is at the bottom of the reading ladder?
People who've read a lot, how do you feel about that? Do you feel like you're still part of that world, or do you just not even bother interacting?

I feel like this has to be the case right? It seems odd that a Nuclear Bomb from Russia could end the War unless America didn't have a nuke to threaten Russia with right? I assume America has a bomb by the end of HM2 because a Nuclear War seems to happen. Or does it have the bomb?

This is a kind of nerdy question but I can't find the answer anyway. But like a hierarchy is a pyramid structure where you have several levels, where each person in the hierarchy answers to one person above them. So you can have the bottom of the hierarchy be the people who command no one, and then they answer to a person above them, and that person answers to a person above them, and that person answers to someone above them, until you get to the top of the hierarchy where the decisions are being made.

So for example in a corporation the CEo is at the top, and has the CFO and VP and whoever else beneath him or her, and they have managers beneath them and those managers have people employed beneath them. And usually this hierarchy does not have that many layers, usually only a handful. So I was wondering which hierachy in our society has the most levels, like quantitatively, which pyramid has the most layers.

I just love using/hearing the term Accelerationist outside of the "Acc" sphere. Usually it is used to mean, accelerating the bad situation in hopes of getting it over with, for better or worse. I just think Accelerationist is a cool word and I think it's great that it is used outside the context of some guy's Deleuze fanfiction. Like in that game it's called Red Flood or something? In any case I am really fond of Accelerationism as a general term, of speeding up a shitty situation. It reminds me of Nietzsche's "Make fall what must fall"

Don't get me wrong I love the scuffed rubber animal masks that people use for cosplay, they look creepy in their own right but I'm just surprised that Devolver or whoever didn't try to merchandize the game by making official rubber masks that look like the ones in game. Would that just be too difficult and unprofitable for an indie game that isn't all that big like Hotline Miami?

Ok so I played around some more with dodge and it turns out it was a Skill Issue. Idk if it's objectively useful or whatever but good God is it fun. I think initially I made the mistake of treating it as if it can only consistently dodge Shotguns and pistols but turns out that was a massive Skill Issue on my end. It absolutely can dodge everything it's just that Shotguns and Pistols are far easier to dodge and you have to approach continually firing guns from the right angle.

I think the key to getting it is to just Use it ALL THE TIME, like Pussy baiting the enemy behind corners? Absolutely forget about it, from now on it's non stop moving forward. it's shockingly effective to train your brain for it, and you can actually develop pretty decent habits for how to avoid getting shot or meleed.

Another massive use case is to use the dodge reactively. Like so many times in HM2 you get that premonition that you're about to die and usually you can't really do anything about it but with the Dodge roll you can just reactively press Space, and get those I frames. And like sure most of the time you'll get shot anyway but quite a few times it actually saves you. Like if you dodge away behind cover or if the enemy is using a single fire weapon or is shooting you through a window and runs after you. So yeah it's good it genuinely makes you feel like john matrix

Like it's such a cool mechanic, but I don't understand why they chose to make it so underpowered that you're genuinely better off ignoring its existence 99 percent of the time.
For example you can't cancel out of a roll into an attack which just why? So many times it would be convenietn to be able to roll into someone and then attack out of the roll but you have to stop rolling and then attack which makes it far more difficult to time it and it just feels like there are moments where you are guaranteed to get hit somehow? Am I just bad? IS there a way to actually use the roll that is effective and not just in very specific scenarios? Like I wish you could just play levels as Corey where you roll most of the time, I feel like that's sort of the intent but as it is it's like an ability that's useful sometimes but way too risky and if you want to die less often you should just not use it at all

Seriously the idea that we have a Soul that is separate from our concrete bodies and environments is such a bulllshit lie that I bet Tech Fucks will work really fucking hard to make into actual reality. Because they can't go with the flow of a technology, they can't actually make stuff that is new. AI art proves this. They pour massive amounts of resources to make what? To make what already exists. They're bending this machine into shape, with a whip and a carrot and a stick, burning resources endlessly just to get it to make stuff that already exists instead of making anything new. And they'll do that with HUman souls. Ages might pass with you dead,only for them to figure out after 10 000 years of development and forcing, that they can trick a machine into convicingly mistaking itself into thinking that it is your soul disembodied from your flesh and is currently residing in Hell. I just can't beleive that this is the reality we are actually living in.

The recent tweet by NIck Land that "Fisher had a child and then killed himself" brings me to the question- why did either of them have children? How is it in line with either of the two's philosophies to settle down and have kids? I mean I'm not saying that it contradicts their philosophy I just assume they both have an intellectual justification for it that is explained by way of their philosophies so I wonder what it is. Just on account that they are very radical and anti humanist and tend to hate the organic and overall traditional values

Probably a mistake to even ask this, but why do the consider the right to Abortion as something that Capitalism "makes room for" or "adjusts to" as some kind of concession or expansion of its logic? Wouldn't abortion being allowed be the default as just a medical service you can pay for, and additional concerns about the sanctity of fetuses be the added on Axioms that twist or expand Capitalism and give it arbitrary moral axiomatic concerns?

D&G repeatedly assert that there was once a primitive-Head-Body that defined what we would call Indigenous cultures , at least ones that didn't have Writing. And than they always go on to say that eventually that system found itself Overcoded by the Face and Writing. And that we are now in the system of the Face. And always they say "it's impossible to go back to the body" it's impossible to simply regress back to the way things were "before the Face". We have to do something that overcomes the Face, which is a third thing, A probe head that is different from the primitive head and that is constructed onthe basis of a dismantled Face.

But then what is the point of this theoretical idea of the Primitive Head? Why invoke this past existing structure only to say that it is forever impossible to reach, like some kind of Paraidse lost, garden of Eden that we can assert once existed in the past? Is there any pragmatic reason to keep this around or are we just following the autopilot script that always seems to create a"Pre PhasE" a Pre Oedipal phase to be conquered by Oedipus and then something else that Sublimates and Transcends Oedipus.

Why this Three partite Schema always? Why Primitive head Christ Face and Probe heads??

See I'm mainly going off the overall feminist messaging in his work. Basically Fisher understands Femininity as opposed to Masculinity in a very metaphysical way, or a philosophical way, in the way a lot of philosophers do. For Fisher he takes the side of femininity really hard and against Masculinity which he heavily critiques and generally despises.
But like at the same time, Fisher identifies as a man right, he doesn't identify as a woman so I wonder if he would consider crossing that boundary and actually transforming from a man to a woman or wanting society to refer to you as a woman even though it once referred to you as a man as a kind of erroneous way to go about it. Because he himself despises masculinity but he never goes to change his physical body right? Idk in general philsophers who write a lot about femininity as this metaphysical/ ontological category deeper than just the facts on the ground tend to be transphobic or tend to see trans people as just fucked up or stupid or crossing over boundaries in the wrong way, or not "becoming" properly in the way Deleue and Guattari would say

I'm talking mainly about envy of people on TV, and to be honest I'm talking about Euphoria the TV show. I haven't really watched past the first episode because it is so burning and intense to me so it's difficult for me to just sit in place and watch, but any time I see it referenced or see an ad for it it reminds me how I feel, and I feel butterflies in my tummy like having some kind of unrequited love. It's a harsh feeling but not a feeling that I want to go away, because it's so intense that nothing compares to it.

But everything else in my life feels completely empty, I don't care about anything, and everything just feels irrelevant and meaningless compared to the sheer intensity of envy towards Euphoria. I don't hate it just to be clear. It feels like the only thing that matters, the only thing that makes life worth living, to feel the Envy for this accomplishment of human kind.

It feels somehow like all of human civilization, all of the blood and shit and wars, and toil and misery and pain, they were all just a lead up to Euphoria. I know that sounds extreme but that's what it feels like. Like we have done it, we have reached the Summit, we have made Euphoria, as this standard for what the greatest most beautiful most glamorous life should be. And then to experience that Envy becomes the only thing worth anything in life.

I wonder if I'm alone in this, and honestly I don't know what to do about it. How do I fully live this envy, how do I fully experience it as part of my life, how do i spend the most time possible immersed in it.

Have people done this? It doesn't need to be Euphoria per say, it could be beautiful people online or rich beautiful people or people who are special in some way, has anyone felt that Envy towards them is not something to be avoided but fully lived and embraced as a kind of supreme ecstasy? I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.