/hell/ - internet death cult

>>5486
>Very traditional french & euro aristocracts, kings, viceroys, rulers weared wigs, makeup. (just like today NA)
that was not a gender statement lol but it's true that in nobility after the 16th century there were cases like this. you could have mentioned that many italian sons of nobles were bisexual and very andro looking, but that was persecuted and virtually made fun of by every other european nobility. psychologically it was often a mark of a well developed individuality coming from a wealthy background (renaissance italy was the start of the individual will instead of the collective will in europe) and it's no wonder that nietzsche, yuko mishima, tesla, jung, goethe etc. were all pretty much on the grey area. today gender noncomformists also often come from wealthy families or more liberal views, but now it's heavily "pauperized" and it often turns into a means to have power over others (socialism as a remnant of protestantism) and a quick way to feel better with oneself by not dealing with one own's nature and going immediately on the opposite to feel better.I hope the meaning of individuality gets through even though i don't even know what today it means for people.

jung wrote that he didn't believe in AGP or stuff like that and thought that it was a sign of someone struggling in his renewal process (that's what i mean with individuality). Kinda like a spiral process or eternal mithosis and creation (dividing from the collective and then dividing again and then…) If you see his work on alchemy you will also start to make connections on androginy in cultures and why virtually every culture research union between the two. Nick land also made some very schizo but smart observations on the correlation between postmodernity, computers, death of god and values, gender noncomformity that all ties to extreme decentralization (reflected in computers and the internet a.k.a. collective unconscious) of everything and destruction of the institutionalized Logos in a post christian society (if you wondered why many people in computers are not gender traditional). Either way it's definitely a thing of our age and our age will never understand it, just like a real artist does not understand his art or where it comes from, and is also afraid to find out because "he will lose it".

>>5490
>Nick Land
>Jung
>Yukio Mishima
This really is lainchan spam. Shoo!

>>5489
>When Weber said that we once lived in an enchanted world he was not describing the material conditions of existence but describing in a very general way the worldview of people the time.
Yes, and that's precisely what I'm criticizing here, this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow saw themselves as intrinsically and instrumentally a part of some religious superstructure. It's just not accurate and is overly romantic.
>I don't see any references to other cultures in the OP.
Where have we gotten most of our knowledge on hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and agriculturalists from? Well, I'll go ahead and tell you now that it wasn't Europe as by the time science as we know it came around we'd already choked out pretty much all our domestic "primitives," and by the time anthropology finally stopped being a racist pseudoscience we were already highly urbanized and were even cusping on deindustrialization in much of the west.

>>5496
>this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow saw themselves as intrinsically and instrumentally a part of some religious superstructure
Medieval Christians had a very different worldview to their secular descendants. They certainly did see themselves as a part of a greater cosmic-moral order and you can see that in their literature.

People who live in homeless camps in American cities are for all practical purposes, hunter gatherers. They form quasi-nomadic communities and forage for resources. Can they give us an insight into how people lived in the Neolithic era? No, and neither can bushmen in Africa or Andaman Islanders. These people are very much part of the present and not living fossils as Westerners like to believe. You won't find the truth of gender relations or primitive communism or whatever by looking at modern day foraging communities.

>>5497
>Medieval Christians had a very different worldview to their secular descendants.
Yes, I made a minor issue in my wording. I should have said " this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow intrinsically and instrumentally saw themselves as a part of some religious superstructure." Some people did, even some cultures did so more largely than others, but let's also quit pretending that the religious writings from the period are necessarily reflective of how most people engaged with the faith, that isn't even true of today when literacy is near universal in the west.
>People who live in homeless camps in American cities are for all practical purposes, hunter gatherers. They form quasi-nomadic communities and forage for resources.
Either bait or just incredibly dull. No, they do not form cohesive societies and do not exist in traditional economic modes of production or even do much hunting or gathering of wild food resources among many other things.
>Can they give us an insight into how people lived in the Neolithic era? No, and neither can bushmen in Africa or Andaman Islanders. These people are very much part of the present and not living fossils as Westerners like to believe. You won't find the truth of gender relations or primitive communism or whatever by looking at modern day foraging communities.
Deeply unserious attempt at debunking me. Less strawmen next time.

>>5380
I've been thinking about this reply. I struggle with having conversations largely because I can't put into words the things that I'm passionate about when the time is right. I know this is a different discussion, but could you explain in more detail what you mean by being more mindful about your interests? Did it ever help you with anything else, like expressing yourself?

I struggle to turn thoughts into words. I don’t even bother because none of my interests and hobbies are worth telling anyone about.

>5373
I remember this amazing .swf macromedia NGE masterpiece game that I've downloaded from dialup during GameSpy era and played. It was an vn sim, with multiple days, playing as Shinji, really well made.

Maybe if I learn to love my problems, they'll leave me as well.

>>5493
This is a great idea.

i hate amazon web services

I hate subways
I hate stairs
I hate doctors
I hate vans
I hate planes
I hate helicopters
I hate walking

…I HATE MY LIIIIIFE

i hate the baader-meinhof effect! i think it's fake!! i might have seen the term uwaraba like once before this week, but now i actually learn where it comes from and see it again the next day!! its chance!! not cognitive bias!!

i wanna poke that belly.

yes

koruri has escaped containment

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaGGgghHHHHHH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRG

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Same, for the twentieth time.

I blocked 90% of the internet, all social medias, reddit, 4chan and porn sited 3d and 2d. Now I can finally feel calm and no more anxiety.
I only post in less well known imageboards and use youtube, peace and tranquility.

>>5317
Mods better spoiler this post. It's uncomfy religious imagery.

EDIT: Sure!

I'm in the process of doing this myself.

Seems reasonable. I think my mental health recovered massively once I stopped being online so much heh. Dunno what's up with that, I think there are just some unhealthy patterns in my head which are mostly connected with other people. Some solitary activities are totally fine.

Many would love to be invaded by certain forces.

So many are tired and only certain spirits will wake them.

>>5421
>People want stuff. There's not enough stuff.
That's where you're wrong janitor-kun

There is a 'Zen' way to affluence. If there's not enough stuff, we should limit our wants and live within our means to enjoy a simple but affluent living. But it seems many politicians are obsessed with ideas like productivity and growth and think that we can meet infinite human needs through increasing industrial productivity which necessitates more extensive exploitation of people and nature. This is futile because finite resources can never meet inexhaustible desires. I've only ever read Sahlins and know very little about economics beside him so I CTRL + V'd his shtick here.

>>5410
I don't think Engels is a good fit here. You can't really understand Marx without understanding who he was having conversations with intellectually. I guess for political economy, you'd need to read Adam Smith, and for his social theories you should look at Hegel's philosophy of history and his political theory as well as Darwin's Origin of the Species. Marx was a huge Darwin fanboy. Even sent him a signed copy of Capital.

>>5421
Since we have a economy thread, can't we have a religious studies and theology thread too? What about an anthropology and archaeology thread? Ethnomusicology?

Infinite verities of economies exist.
An economy is a goal.
Such as the goal of the ever increasing quality of a specific collective..

Quality naturally increases unless a barrier emerges and then an economy problem solves.

Some goals never end and that’s the goal.
Goodness gets ever goodder.

Hmm, I will try to respond without reading much of the replies ITT, perhaps I will repeat something but oh well. Also feel free to skip, it's NOT particularly smart or educated in any way hehe.

>Is economics a bunch of lies?
Not quite. But it IS tied into politics heavily and is based on a bunch of political beliefs. Classical economics is based on beliefs of a certain social group hehe.
Now, I think there are at least two ways of looking at economics and both are employed but at times people think economics is only one of them:
- according to the first, economics is akin to managing a factory: good and services come 'round according to a set of predetermined rules - or perhaps there are no rigid rules but the "economy" concerns itself mostly/only with the "functioning" aspect, i.e. to build a car, one needs a long list of prerequisites to be met, both in personnel qualities and the goods provided - why a car should be made is out of the question tbh (generally it's answered as "we need a device to move something from point A to point B" I guess)
Perhaps I'm bad at explaining this, but the point is we leave human motivations from doing anything out of the picture and just focus on managing goods and services. It is certainly reductionist but it's powerful in a sense if you don't master it, you actually cannot get anything done. So, when people say "let's fix the economy" I think a lot of think think like that, let's restore the functioning of the exchange machine. That "definition" of economics is free from any politics but we cannot make a functioning economy without bringing humans into picture.
(TBH perhaps I'm conflating economics and technology a bit but I am myself not sure if one can easily separate the two)
- so, according to the second, economics is humans doing favors to each other. We realize we cannot fulfill our needs by ourselves, so we use others to do our bidding, quid pro quo. So, economy is the art of making deals and related stuff. Also, economics is the way to control others, control society, economies are complex machines of social nature. Therefore it's heavily political. In fact, "favor for a favor" and "mutual exchange" are definitely not the only principles to run society by. Likewise, humans are vile and do things to distort the "fair" picture by doing clearly "unfair" things.
So with that in mind, economics is inseparable from humans which do not necessarily evePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The body was too long

Now onto some other points
>It has been said the economists definition of rational behavior as behavior consistent with their own models, with all other behavior dubbed irrational
I think there are other ways to approach economics other than "modelling an ideal society" like classical people did, though I haven't studied them really. But yea, I would agree that whatever they teach at schools outside of heavily specialized ones seems to be kinda horrendous. I would agree that political ideologies should NOT dictate economics.
Further down you describe classical liberal economics would be my guess. Yeahhhh, there have been corrections to that, people mostly do not run "pure" liberal economies these days, but the liberal ideology is an insanely tenacious one and things like neoliberalism exist, too.
>Similarly, Trobriand islanders used to travel great distances to trade seemingly useless and valueless objects Why?
TBH I don't know why but yea, I would agree that humans are generally not rational beings. In fact, rationality is a human invention, I don't think there was any civilization other than the European/Mediterranean one which would be so stuck up at pursuing the truth. I think most civs just follow the hedonistic route, more or less. Trying to answer that question though, maybe it's the journey that matters to them more than the end goal w
>Even the whole inc*l trend was caused by people trying to apply economics to sex and relationships and its created a whole horde of delusional people
To be fair, to me incel stuff doesn't seem to be *that* out of touch with reality. As far as I know, there were certain periods of history during which certain societies all across the globe… basically treated women as livestock aka slaves and a [valuable] commodity - so, women could be traded like goods, deprived of agency and certainly be an object of economies. It is really as simple as that. So, some men want to revive it heh - I know I don't hehe. I assume the "delusion" ascribed to incels is that they can find a loving soul that way - yeaaaa, let's just say they are not necessarily looking for one, they just want a woman to fuck and dominate or something.
>Are there any good economists?
The ones concerning themselves with human nature as opposed to delusional modelling. The ones Post too long. Click here to view the full text.