Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About vikingwizardsrule

  • Rank
    meatwad's got the money c

Profile Information

  • Biography
    From mars.
  • Location
    Can't be farther from nowhere
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ
  1. One thing lacan tried to do was to sanitize freud-- For Freud the three facet of infant development was the Father (Superego) the Mother (Id/desire) and the Self (ego). Lacan, responding to critics who thought this model was sexist, bourgeois, culturally specific replaced the father with the Symbolic, or the law, the mother with the Real, and the lack separating the self and the real (thus desire is the fantasy to overcome the lack) and the self stayed the self (if only because all the self is is a mediation between the ego and superego). The rest of it is very similar to Freud. The Father lays down the Law that says that you shall not fuck your mother, therefore the father, or the symbolic law (the prohibition), steals all of your enjoyment. It prevents your desire from reaching its destined point. Thus, you develop fantasies of the Real (or in freudian terms, fucking your mother or mother-substitute), and those fantasies sustain your subjectivity. This explains why when you get too close to fulfilling your fantasy you flip out because it challenges the very core of your subject-formation--a.k.a. the Law that prevents you from becoming whole again. Those who get too close to the Real (read: mother) become psychotics.
  2. "People on drugs" -- who are these people on drugs? I only know some people who have taken drugs who's life experiences have shaped them into very sensitive and intelligent people, no its not just the drugs, but these people I know are on drugs all the time, like ALL THE TIME. So how is it possible not to associate their personalities at least somewhat with their drug use? Wow am I glad that i DON'T do that. No, its not "i want to have a thought, take mushrooms" its more--- look i'm tripping on mushrooms, I'm having nice thoughts and conversations that are useful for issues that are not merely recreational. No, its not a cause and effect relationship (extacy => emotion, mushrooms => intellecutal conversation). Its the intersection of experiences. Political persuasion and political activism doesn't exist prior to our life experiences. Its the intersection of everything that gives a hint at what we are, our experiences mix up in unpredictable ways to create identity and self, all which do not exist prior to the flows that constitute them. So drugs, their usefulness lies in the way they contextualize our experiences, intensifies them in certain ways. Such things can be done in different ways too, in no way am I asserting the universal of drugs = liberation, but I would caution greatly against universally asserting the opposite drugs=/=politics. Just as intellectuals like churchill ward and vine deloria cannot seperate their political convictions from their social locations as indians, I can't seperate my politics from drug use. Drugs ARE part of my social location right now(if only for a limited amount of time) Yes, there will probably be a part of my life in which economic necessity or something else will limit my drug use, that doesn't mean that will be the end to political life. The relationship between drugs and politics is not drugs => politics or even drugs <=> politics. Its more like drugs +$(@$*I!)@$!@#)~~~~~~ politics--i.e. its a complex multidimensional, multidirectional, crazy fucked up incomprehensible undescribable relationship--one that cannot be reduced to anything in particular. Does the phallic tower of Reason suffice for you? Everything is experience, everything is chemicals interacting with your brain. My argument was putting into question your quick and dirty dismissals of other peoples experiences. Like, you took 3 tries just to get the events right (1st--playstation playstation 2nd--changed mind while sober 3rd-- coercion coercion coercion). Perhaps one shouldn't have conversations while one is happy, because ya know..,. more suceptible to suggestion....... GUESSING GUESSING GUESSING GUESSING GUESSING. Stop guessing. In fact she held a very strong conviction before. But I won't go into this, its not the best example. I talked about this originally to make a remark at your "two things at the coffeehouse" argument (aka Mushroomhouse vs. coffeehouse). There are better analogies that kevin has already talking about Yeah. Above. Mostly answered above, but i'd like to add that mushroom experiences arent quite compartmentalized into an 8 hour trip. The things you experienced and discussed on trips stay with you, they're probably recorded on your conscious and unconscious in a different way than if you had a conversation sober. Yes you can be sober and rethink your experiences, gain new insights etc. Which is why even if i never do any drugs again drugs still would have changed my life in a very significant way. In short, drugs aren't a one shot pony. Yeah, I know what youre talking about. But its equally likely to make a failure of judgement when you're sober, drugs just change the types of failures of judgments that you make. Aka, when on mushrooms you may be oversensitive to certain emotions and decide, lets say, to quit drugs When you're sober you're more likely to make errors of blind judgement, not noticing the important details of the world around you walking around with a very self-indulgent confidence that you know the world etc... Not that sobriety or insobriety NECESSARILY does any of these things, but that they affect your judgements and perceptions in a way that makes it more likely (for some people. effects may vary) So, in response to a little catchphrase you said earlier "perhaps its good to put down the bong" - Yes, it is perhaps useful and good to put down the bong sometimes. - Yes, it is also perhaps useful and good to take a good ol' rip from that bong also. So leave blanket statements at the door, embrace the beauty of ambiguity.
  3. people not on drugs are also easy to bully. whats your point? certain perspectives come easier in certain mindstates, thats something thats undeniable. Its easier to do math when i'm not on mushrooms, its easier to talk about your emotions on e, its easier to talk about wierd intellectual shit on mushrooms. Each one of these mindstates are important for discovering different perspectives on things. I feel like the ego-loss induced by drugs is productive. end of story--productive means that it can produce anything, it can produce authoritarian bullying it can produce true revelations that are contingent on individual circumstance. if you talk to this person whom we supposedly bullied on mushrooms now, this person will tell you that this one trip changed her entire view towards politics, once quite a libertarian who hates the state but loves capitalism, now with quite a different perspective on things. (not quite a socialist or a communist, if those terms have any meaning at all) I like it that your make persumptions of other peoples experiences based on your own, ultimately leading you to factually incorrect assessments.
  4. Probably all the reason for corporations NOT TO FUCK PEOPLE OVER. And therefore save on the costs. the 'balance' you speak of is balancing the weight of the dead trees and bodies with the weight of dollars. Fuck that. "Negative externality" is a codeword for environmental destruction, poverty, and starvation
  5. The same reason why we don't assign monetary value to our relatives (despite life insurance's best attempts) we should assign monetary value for our environment. If you've seen fight club there's a part when edward norton says "You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (, then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement ©. A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall. " its the same damn thing with the environment. If the cost of making double hulled tankers exceeds the 'environmental cost' you don't do it And then there is the question of WHO ASSIGNS COSTS? In the economy costs are assigned by the market, but how can there be a market of environmental pollution? The people who do the cost-benefit-analysis are always the technocrats who have investments in their own social institutions who will inevitably weigh short term gain over long term environmental damage. Billionaire environmentalists like bill ford will be nice to the environment AS LONG AS IT MAINTAINS THEIR PROFIT MARGINS. Once profit goes down, fuck the environment. When you think long term, it is absolutely necessary for a different approach: one that puts the persumption in favor of the victims instead of the elites. This is why i say we should see economics as a social science. People run the economy, people do not act as rational benefit-maximizers, people love things, people hate things, people have libidinal attachments to things. Economics is at its core a social activity, not a scientific venture. If we can start priveleging that social question -- ethics for example, OVER economic calculation we can actually prevent the social harms that are occuring everyday instead of merely addressing the symptoms. For example, is it possible to integrate debt relief into economic calculus? Not without giving each child that dies a dollar value--but that brings us back to the question of WHO GETS TO DECIDE HOW MUCH A DYING BABY COSTS??? and the even more important question of WHAT THE FUCK WILL HAPPEN ONCE WE START THINKING OF DEAD BABIES IN DOLLAR AMOUNTS? [edit:] My alternative is to CHANGE THE ENTIRE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE for corporations, by making corporations accountable to ethics instead of forcing them to pay for environmental harms. The same reason we don't let war criminals get off with just a fine is the same reason why we shouldn't allow corporations to either
  6. Notice that i explained that argument specifically with environmental economics in the next section. The main problem is one of approaching environmental degredation as a monetary issue, considering the way we approach monetary issues now (everything is commensurable), there's no reason to expect it to be any different once we introduce externalities into economic calculation proper. Sophistry? Probably as much as socrates was a sophist. I think the dillon quote means quite a lot. In fact its probably the most warranted two sentences around. When things like life are 'rendered calculable' (fungible, commensurable) then their value can go to zero, like the inflation of money, and once that value goes to zero that thing doesn't count anymore. If you're talking about life, this is the "zero point of holocaust" I don't think i need to have a walk-through for every sentence that i post.
  7. even if drugs are bad, drug laws are worse 1. Increases the violence associated with drug use and production. Becuase drugs aren't legally regulated, and you can't call the cops if someone robs you of your coke stash-- you carry a gun. Actually, you might hire ten people to carry guns with you. Thats not enough, you ask the mob to help you guard your drugs. This is how there is so much violence when it comes to coke and other expensive drugs. Legalize drugs and the problem goes away, there aren't any big cigarette or alcohol killings these days. (and when alcohol was illegal there was a lot of organized crime surrounding it Al Capone etc.) 2. People will do them anyways. Alcohol consumption during the prohibition was the same if not more than after the prohibition. Same with marijuana, which was only illegalized in the last century. 3. Drug war is evil. All the violence in columbia these days are closely linked to the US led war on drugs. US backing of the right-wing columbian government to fight drugs has caused widespread civil unrest. Fumigation efforts have displaced many many legitimate farmers while poisoning water supplies. the drug war also doesn't work, ever since the US govt has declared a 'war on drugs' drug use among american teens has increased 4. Overflowing prisons-- america has a larger percentage of its population behind bars than any other nation. 70 percent of these people are drug offenders, most of the minorities. Drugs just give the pigs an excuse to racially profile and be the evil pigs they are. This, of course, is assuming that all the drugs that the USFG outlaws are in fact really bad for people, which most arent. Marijuana's only bad side effect is that it hurts your lungs, something which the government doesn't care about of course because cigarettes are legal. (it would be worse if they did care about your lungs.) Mushrooms have zero physical side effects whatsoever, though if you have a bad trip you may be psychologically affected for life (depends on how bad the trip is). But when's the government ever supposed to regulate your psychological well being. Are people who are depressed because their job is to be a cog in the wheel of the corporate machine supposed to be thrown behind bars also? Acid has very few side effects though flashbacks may be an issue sometimes. By far, the drugs that are legal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco) have much more negative impacts on people than most illegal drugs. The selection of drugs to illegalize has nothing to do with their health effects or social consequences--but rather because of the types of fiscal and cultural priorities our society and government have (big tobacco and alcohol gives lots of cash to the government, marijuana is the plague that the black are spreading onto our nice (white) suburban neighborhoods, the tripping millions are going to riot maybe even overthrow our narrowminded social order... etc etc etc. )
  8. I don't think 'true cost' economics is a good solution to the problems of neoclassical economics--at least not in the way it WOULD be deployed. While true cost economics can be seen as injecting social demands onto impersonal economic calculation, it can also at the same time be an economization of the social. I think 'true cost' economics (especially the model endorsed by 'billionaire enviornmentalists' is backwards: By introducing things like environmental degredation and social cost into the economic model, you monetarize social issues that cannot be reduced to monetary terms. Environmental economics is a perfect example-- while it is comparatively better than neoclassical economics in limiting environmental degredation, it still subordinates pollution and environmental degredation to calculable terms. And as we know "Once rendered calculable, however, units of account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation. Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing." (Dillon, Another Justice, Political Theory 99 27:2). To make that claim less theoretical, true cost economics would still be subordinating social and environmental issues to the rule of economic experts--who are anything but neutral observers, but most likely economic elites who are invested in advancing their economic agendas. This way, the 'cost' of environmental risks are likely to be downgraded, while the economic gains will be prioritized. Our culture's prioritization of economic 'progress' over its externalities is quite entrenched, and must be dealt with head-on, not through simply 'internalizing the externality.' Our current cultural priorities will always win out within that scenario. Instead, why not invert the idea of 'economising the social' and 'socialize the economic' -- i.e. why not instead consider the economy itself, with its calculative efficiency as a cultural construction. Instead of trying to fit social factors within the rigid grid of economic logic, we should instead explode economics and make it an issue of sociology, anthropology, geography, and politics. This would truly allow us to embrace the complexity of economic systems--because people make the economy work. People are dumb, greedy, creative, irrational, empathetic, and, well, incalculable. In short, economics should be a social science, not a math equation.
  9. Notice that i never said that. But rather i said that drugs ripped a particular character in a particular book from his original ways of thinking. I've got no pretensions about 'defeating capitalism' or anything like that--my analogy was very much in alignment with Kevin's arguments about drugs as a useful tool. And no, my discussion of capitalism with my friend wasn't "most likely to shut "him" (sp) up so to go back and play playstation"--that trip consisted entirely of walking in the woods behind the golf course and talking about politics. Social change is a lot more than making conscious actions onto the material world and 'changing it' (sounds a bit cartesian doesn't it--subject/object?) but rather must change the entire coordinates of struggle. Our psyches have been structured by the social in such a way that we have libidinal investments in our own victimization, something that we can't untie consciously at the decision of 'master ego' Therefore, politics requires personal change just as much as it requires change 'out there' -- thats where drugs come in. Drugs are in no way the only tool we have, but is one of them. I don't see why you need to deny that.
  10. Personal transformation is a prerequisite for any other form of revolutionary action.
  11. I'm just sayin that if you wished to transform yourself into a crow on mushrooms (as opposed to just tripping balls), you need to train yourself in a way that is similar to training yourself to get high off water. True, I knew that cartesian dualism was bad before I started doing drugs. I also knew that our access to reality 'out there' was limited at best, if that reality existed at all But I didn't know how things could be different, I didn't know that there was energy and strands of shit beneath the walls, the trees, the river (mushrooms) I didn't know that reality was in fact one big cosmic joke, and in fact I was a couch for all eternity (salvia) Most importantly i knew but i couldnt FEEL the 'truth' of the opinions on these issues. Certainly insights, useful? I dunno, i think so. [quote[ Seriously, this is all dumb. Reading critical texts and doing a bunch of drugs just aren't really related. Lots of people read critical texts (and understand them) without doing any drugs. Alternately, lots of people do drugs to see cool things when they play on popular video game consoles. The only relationship that these two activities (drugs and crit-tasticalism) really have is that they're common recreational activities for people in and around tertiary education. Just because both activities are hott topics in the coffeehouse doesn't mean that they're really connected in any meaningful way. What about a coffeehouse, ON MUSHROOMS. Seriously, mushrooms are better than coffee as a catalyst for having intellectual conversations and ranting about shit that concerns me. I remember convincing someone that capitalism was in fact bad on a mushroom trip this summer, something that COULD have gone on elsewhere under a different mind-state but what is a better 'coffeehouse' than walking around the woods, tripping, and ranting about capitalism?
  12. Also, more to the point The series of books by Carlos Casteneda, starting with The Teachings of Don Juan, demonstrate one effective use of drugs to literally rip the author, Carlos, from his incredibly stubborn psychological investment within western rationality, to begin his transformation to 'a man of knowledge.' When working with an apprentice, a nagual must use various forms of trickery in order to get the apprentice to become immersed within the world of seeing (what 'seeing' entails, amusingly, seems very similar to the types of imagery that D&G write about--one sees humans as eggs of energy with strands that connect to eachother--the image of the egg is also invoked in anti-oedipus though the body without organs has no shape, of course.). Many methods of the sorcerer are used to initiate apprentices, while some apprentices give in by their own accord. But carlos, a westerner, all too sure that the reality that we all see everyday, combined with various cartesian metaphysical dualisms are in fact all that exist--he exists on a conceptual plane that cannot see any of the other things going on under within and throughout things, he sticks to rational argumentation, attempting to fit even his first mescalito experiences into his rational grid. His benefactor Don Juan, introduces Carlos to three 'drugs' (more accurately: two allies and mescalito), because carlos is curious about peyote. Each of these 'drugs' contain some form of guidance, or so Don Juan tells Carlos. In fact, one does not need these drugs to 'see' (in fact 'seeing' can be consciously triggered by a trained nagual, except for of course the real and guiding experience with the entity called Mescalito) -- drugs, in this case, were a form of trickery--a way to rip Carlos from his grid of cartesian rationality, a way to show him experiences that cannot but shatter his conceptual plane. A way of cultivating a more open attitude towards what is and exists in the world. Perhaps, for carlos at least, these 'drugs' were a very effective tool for bringing him into the sorcerer's world, they were by no means an endpoint, but a condition of possibility (with the careful guiding hand of Don Juan of course). Perhaps, drugs are unwieldy when held incorrectly, used for the wrong purposes (like a sword for plowing...). Drugs, however, can be sharpened. No, taking a bunch of LSD and sitting around tripping balls probably isn't going to help much with liberating oneself (though it may be a start). But, perhaps, if one were to do drugs carefully, with patience, self-discipline---a process of getting high off water, only instead of water, you eat mushrooms (or whatever else)--the result is the same as Hari Krishnas and other modes of destratification.
  13. all I gotta say is that when i ate mushrooms after reading Anti-Oedipus i could literally see all the flows beneath the surface of everything, stretching out, grappling with eachother, not always attaching themselves to the partial objects that they touch but attempting to conjugate nonetheless. I also find myself able to read deleuze with more ease after smoking a joint. (While reading Zizek stoned gives me a headache--something to do with their writing styles I suppose) take that tidbit as you would like, about two drugs that most likely will not end up 'damaging the body' in any significant way.
  14. Isn't that the point? that you can't access the real? that even Slavoj Zizek, former slovenian presidential candidate and director at the university of Libujuania can't access the real? The "Real" is percisely that which we cannot access yet desire, it is what drives desire the search for that which is real that which fills the lack within our subjectivity...or so the crazy lacanian psychoanalysts say
  15. when you weigh impacts you can't assume that theres equal risk of nuclear war and cultural violence. The K problematizes the way in which authors put together fragmented pieces of information to make impact claims, i.e. theres an internal link takeout, claims to stop nuclear war and global annihilation have always been used to justify the subtle forms of mass violence that the state engages in.
  • Create New...