as if humans have technology that advanced
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-tiny-sensors-brain-surgery-implants.html
This is based on silicon oxide but a working model of such a technology definitely exists.
Not sure why you're mad, I was poking fun at the fact that GO may actually be a better adjuvant. Are you saying that this isn't the case?
They better retract these papers then:
Exactly correct. Start at the conclusion you want and develop your justification around what you'd like to see removed from the current state of affairs.
Process (additive): Thesis (current state) + Antithesis (contrary obstacles) = Synthesis (goal)
Praxis (subtractive): Synthesis (current state) - Antithesis (contrary obstacles) = Thesis (goal)
Basis for this analysis below (bold = mine, italics = in original):
Sartre seeks to clarify his position by comparing and contrasting, at this point, praxis and process. He states that they are similar in that:
- both are dialectical
- they are defined by their movement and direction
- they transcend the obstacles of the common group field
- both are defined from the starting-point of a certain determination of the field of possibilities which permit the clarification of the signification of their different moments
- both are violence, fatigue, perpetual exchange and transmutation of energy,
But, they are dissimilar in that:
- praxis is revealed immediately by its end: the future determination of the field of possibilities is posited from the start by a projective transcendence of material circumstances: i.e. by a project. At each moment of action, it is the agent who produces himself in such or such posture, accompanied by such or such effort in terms of present givens, clarified by his future objective. This praxis is free because in a given circumstance, starting from a given need or danger, it invents its own law, in the absolute unity of its project, as mediation between the objectivity already given, and the objectification that remains to be produced.
- the human group process is neither comparable to an avalanche or an inundation, nor comparable to an individual action. It conserves all the characteristics of individual action, except that of being the free constitution of ends, since it is constituted by the oriented action of a multiplicity of individuals. But at the same time, these characteristics receive it in the modification of passivity. Each here is presented as a passivity in action, and implies the same passivity in a ubiquity in all the heres. Praxis appears as the evanescent elsewhere.
— Reason and Violence, R.D. Laing & D.G. Cooper, 1964
Ender knew that at this moment he might be able to walk out of the room and end the battle. The way he had escaped from the battleroom after drawing blood. But the battle would only be fought again. Again and again until the will to fight was finished. The only way to end things completely was to hurt Bonzo enough that his fear was stronger than his hate.
― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game
The medium is the message.
When I made my theoretical model, I could not have guessed that people would try to realise it with Molotov cocktails.
— Theodor Adorno, developer of Critical Theory, as quoted in The Dialectical Imagination : A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research
A woman I knew (environmentalist) always only used this term when she was driving home a point to someone else who she thought was dumber than her.
"I'm going to talk in a way that you stupid people can understand."
That's all it is to them; with an air of royalty, they reluctantly wade out into the "common-folk's" language to show their benevolence, while retaining their sense of linguistic superiority by using the term as a covert intellectual slur.
Why do you think they're producing so much content, journalistically and academically?
They know, instinctively or not, what's coming. A permanent crystallization of society based on the hysterical "now."
The Third Reich did not succeed in creating a single work of art, a single conceptual structure, which could have satisfied even the threadbare liberalistic demand of “niveau” [French: artistic level].
— Theodor Adorno
Something something doesn't always repeat but often rhymes...
I was once on a bus in a faraway land and paid for my fare like I was supposed to.
Several stops down the line, many locals and tourists jumped on the bus without paying.
At the next stop, the bus driver screamed something over the speakers in an angry language.
Everyone quickly got kicked off the bus and had to find other transportation to their destinations.
Red Sparrow is a 2018 American spy thriller film directed by Francis Lawrence and written by Justin Haythe, based on the 2013 novel of the same name by Jason Matthews. The film stars Jennifer Lawrence, Joel Edgerton, Matthias Schoenaerts, Charlotte Rampling, Mary-Louise Parker, and Jeremy Irons. It tells the story of a Russian intelligence officer, who is sent to make contact with a CIA officer in the hope of discovering the identity of a mole.
Matthews, a former member of the CIA, advised the production on the depiction of spying. Based on historic Soviet sexpionage and contemporary Russian use of kompromat, filming took place in Hungary, Slovakia and Austria.
I'm not pro- or anti-Russia, so hopefully it's not taken as a direct analogy, it's just the form of the movie that has a familiar ring in Adam's current personal lore.
It's what happens when a man loses his Red Sparrow.
Headline: Kombucha mushroom people who sit around all day in disbelief that country lets its mothers pray.
Ah, nearing the "there was no one left to speak out" part of the story.
So what is the genesis of this situation and what's the end game?
A bunch of people were shunned from society and found refuge online. The society that kicked them out has been monitoring and analyzing their behavior online and now wants them kicked out of the refuge? For what? To where? How so and in what manner? Back to mainstream society all to get kicked out again?
THEY DON'T WANT TO DATE YOU, ACADEMIA! GET THE HINT.
In the light of "do unto others," I hope, for their sake, that these academics don't ever have to get a taste of not being left alone by their current subjects of analyses. I'm afraid of how far the pendulum will swing because of their short-sighted actions today.
History is not a docile pony.
Reddit is an opinion generation machine. It is totally worthless. Don't waste your time.
Yes.
Without an enemy, who would these people even be?
Pseudoexoagrophobophilia.
Misperceiving others to be aggressively phobic for pleasure or gain.
The hate one wishes one could display through the projection of an Other.
The Golden Rule, Inverted: Hating one's neighbor as one hates oneself.
When the one who hates themselves (the first person) is in denial about their own self-hate, the only way that they can project this denial onto another while still relating to them is to be in denial about how the second person must be in denial of their lack of hatred of a third person. The first denial is their own hate of themselves, the second denial is inverted: they are in denial of the second person not hating the third person. The third denial is that the first person secretly hates the third person, but since the first person can relate their own secret self-hate with their secret hate of the third person, this dual-denial seems to invert and then revert the hatred of who they hate into a form of contorted love or camaraderie.
Person 1 hates person 1 / claims to love person 1 => denial #1
Person 1 loves* person 2 / claims to hate person 2 (for hating person 3) => denial #2
Person 1 hates person 3 / claims to love person 3 (through hate-relation) => denial #3
*(finds utility in)
The person in the middle (the second person, the projected upon) is the open scapegoat by which both the secret hater (the first person, in denial of self-hate) and the secretly hated (third person, actually hated by the first) are aligned against, whether they are aware of it or not.
A cheap, yet probable, example (see 2016 suburban voting): a white 'woke' woman is seen decrying a republican man of being racist (even though he might not be, but is easily portrayed to be) because she is afraid of a black family who lives down her street. She knows that she can't be implicated as a racist and still retain her social status (and maintain her self/other hatred without being found out), so she uses the republican man as her situational 'sword & shield' by proxy against the black family (and to buff her own self-esteem through the comparison of herself to the newly minted scapegoat).
The deviousness of this situation is that only the second person and the third person actually get dealt any real social/physical/emotional damage. There must be some sort of self awareness within the first person that knows that they can profit from this arrangement seemingly perpetually. This is probably why they hate themselves, honestly: unexamined, unmitigated guilt.
Now extend this to group identities and you have The Problem enumerated.
Short for "automatons"
— Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations 1991