Nilsi

When I say difference, I don’t mean it as a lack or deviation from an established identity. Identity is a secondary construction - a momentary stabilization within a dynamic and ongoing process of differentiation. So yes, identity is contingent on difference in the sense that it emerges from difference, not the other way around, as has traditionally been held in Western metaphysics since Plato’s idealism. I hate appealing to science, but in this case, it’s fair to say that what might be dismissed intellectually as weird Deleuzian postmodernism (though I believe the logic and experience should speak for themselves) has even been demonstrated by Ilya Prigogine, whose Nobel Prize-winning work on dissipative structures shows that stable identities and structures are not pre-existing essences but emerge from dynamic processes of difference and continuous transformation.

This is where I actually agree with Andrew Tate. You need friends who have your back and are ready to defend you when shit hits the fan. That’s why men fundamentally need to be tough and know how to protect themselves and their people. It’s like a form of nuclear deterrence - most of the time, just showing strength is enough. And when you approach things with good will, you simply apologize for the misunderstanding, buy the other party a drink, shake hands, and walk away.

A little party never killed nobody. Seriously though, framing it that way misses the point. The problem isn’t chaos. We need chaos, and we need to release people’s pent-up desires so that we can bond and recognize our shared humanity. That way, everyone will voluntarily show up the next morning to clean up the mess. Right now, we’re stuck in a situation where everyone’s pulling in different directions, and no coordinated effort is possible. And to stick with the metaphor, the rest of the time, we don’t want to be bothered by either troublemakers or voices of conscience - we just want to be left alone to do whatever the hell we want with our time. Of course, this is a pretty esoteric way of talking about it, but I’m not a fucking politician, and I don’t pretend to be.

Nothing, really. He was just being a buzzkill by refusing to engage in a conversation with me, so I had to push back.

That’s precisely why all this talk about God is so absurd. By Leo’s own admission, every "God-Realization" is different. So, can God really be said to be fundamental, or is it the singularity of each particular experience - the difference in itself - that is fundamental? As familiar as that experience may seem, it’s also as if it’s happening for the first time - totally novel and totally different, in the sense that it is singular and non-fungible. That’s the beauty of reality: it is perpetually novel, affirming difference in itself and its eternal return for itself.

The problem is that "A" isn’t really "A." A bird isn’t simply a bird. There are as many versions of "A" as there are individual birds. In fact, there’s no fixed thing such as "A" at all, because what "A" refers to and the context in which it exists are always in flux. That’s why difference is more fundamental than identity.

Meh, not convinced. If you don’t find a way to integrate your death drive, you’re going to end up with the psychological equivalent of blue balls. In contemporary society, drugs and partying are some of the best avenues to experience a collective Dionysian ecstasy and dissolve boundaries.

And you’re an old-fashioned CNN news anchor who prides yourself on being "reasonable" and "mature" by engaging with politics in the most mundane and conformist way imaginable. I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but this kind of posturing isn’t persuasive at all, and it's precisely why someone like Trump became so popular in the first place. People don’t respond well to being spoken down to. This is why figures like Žižek and Peterson are the most influential public intellectuals, while you remain an obscurity - they understand their audience and speak to their deepest irrational desires, instead of resorting to this dry, soulless “adult talk.” People are craving excitement and connection in their lives. They want to be seduced, and if the most “reasonable” voices refuse to offer that, they’ll inevitably turn to narcissistic populists who are all too eager to give them what they’re looking for.

Whoa, how did I miss this? I’m gonna grab some popcorn for this.

Of course, but that statement is quite superficial. Everyone is self-deceived to some extent; the real problem arises when people deny this and treat their own views as if they’re “objectively” true, turning them into a crusade. This is precisely what Žižek highlights: the issue with postmodernism isn’t that it relativizes and dismantles narratives, creating a “meaning crisis,” but that it responds to this crisis by repressing the traumatic realization and regressing into infantile fantasies of a lost paradise. This is why Peterson’s Christian revival and Trump’s MAGA movement are the ultimate symptoms of postmodernism. And tech-bros with their AI-as-a-new-God mentality are just as misguided - likely why there’s so much mutual sympathy between them. The genius of someone like Schmachtenberger is that he’s future-oriented without falling back into this infantile nostalgia. While someone like Ken Wilber is still clinging hard to a naïve modernist progress narrative in his teleological stage theory, which is just as much of an ego trip as Peterson's.

The title might be misleading, but there’s a lot of depth in this brief analysis.

Are you suggesting that Jordan is a narcissist? I don’t think reducing his character to a simple label through differential psychology will help us grasp the complexity or pathology of his persona - or Trump’s, for that matter. The clip you just posted, along with that strange X-Men propaganda piece, should be evidence enough of this. What’s needed here is a deeper understanding rooted in psychoanalysis, particularly Freudian psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, the only figure capable of this depth in our current discourse is Slavoj Žižek, but he doesn't seem keen on engaging in this conversation.

I actually think Jordan is getting way too much flak. He navigates authentic post-postmodern waters and has a profound grasp on reality; I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't see this is just ignorant. Of course, I'm turned off by the neo-conservative posturing and bombastic theological imagery just as much as the next person, but still, the force and brilliance of his thought are glaringly obvious.

Undoubtedly one of the most brilliant electronic dance music projects ever.

I'm not even trying to critique marketing here. The fact is, in a blind taste test, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Coca-Cola and a generic product. But once that label is slapped onto the bottle, an entire universe of imagery bootstraps itself into existence - impossible to escape from - and genuinely creates a deeper experience of the commodity. So, in a bottle of Coca-Cola, the real is replaced by the hyperreal - the copy without an original; so much so that drinking a bottle of Coke becomes a metaphysical experience of hyperreality itself. It's an affirmation of the social matrix and the simulation that make this sublime experience possible.

That's ridiculous. You're more than willing to pay a premium for a bottle of Coca-Cola over some generic brand - not because it objectively tastes better, but precisely because you want a taste of all the dreams and images that Coca-Cola has planted in your mind through decades of advertising and billions of dollars spent on marketing. Of course, this was all financed by you and billions of others who were ready to pay their share of the marketing budget in every bottle of Coke you've ever bought.

An autistic person and a schizo walk into a debate...

Coffee is like women. Nietzsche said it best: "Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." Still, I couldn’t live without my coffee...

A fascinating yet highly frustrating conversation between the one and only Jordan Peterson and Post-Integral philosopher, activist, and entrepreneur Jamie Wheal, who is closely associated with the Game B movement. Unfortunately, all the tension and momentum the discussion builds doesn't really lead anywhere substantial. Jamie desperately tries to cut through the programmatic talking points to get Jordan to articulate his own views and role in what could be termed the culture wars or, more broadly, the meta-crisis. Meanwhile, Jordan is essentially kicking the can down the road, continuously referencing one Old Testament story after another, and refusing to take any clear or definitive stance. The only semblance of a solution we gets is their discussion on the story of Job from the Old Testament. Jordan insists that in such a situation, what is right and even noble is to maintain faith in oneself and the the divine Logos of creation - implying that he doesn't align with the Game B crowd's assessment of an imminent existential catastrophe or their emphasis on the need for sensemaking and collective intelligence to develop emergent solutions to avert such an event.

Bro, every man goes through an identity crisis at your age. You’re just a very intellectual person who overanalyzes the situation, while your peers deal with it by getting into stupid relationships, drugs, or other distractions. No one has their life figured out at 17. As someone who’s a few years older and just as cerebral, I can tell you there’s no reason to worry. Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ll be fine. Have fun, work hard, make mistakes, and eventually, you’ll start figuring out how life works and where you fit. In the end, none of us really have it all figured out. As you get older and „wiser,“ you’ll get more comfortable with your own flaws while also becoming better at life. It’s a momentum that just builds over time.

Forget about Blue Monday, Age of Consent, and all that other stuff - this, for me, is the defining New Order track. It’s like their entire career compressed into one song, which sounds horrible in theory, but somehow comes together perfectly here.

I totally reject this avoidance of making any kind of affirmative claim without qualifying and undermining it. This is the complete opposite of taking ownership over one's reality. Again, this is the genius of Nietzsche. Implicit here is always Fichte's absolute self - the active "I" at the core of all experience. And Nietzsche, taking what was still unconscious in Homer, pushed this inevitable activity of the self, and with it, language itself, to its absolute limit. This is precisely Nietzsche's will to power: the will affirming and realizing itself as the supreme legislator of reality.

My album of the year so far (and it's likely to stay that way). Someone in the comments of the song I highlighted here said this is Gen-Z's Starless (referring to what is pretty unanimously considered the best King Crimson track), and I can definitely see that. But I’m also getting heavy Frank Zappa vibes from the ridiculously over-the-top characters portrayed here, the vocal presence rivals greats like Freddie Mercury, and the John Zorn influences are obvious as well. And then there’s the fucking samba passages, which feel like a cocky victory lap after everything else that’s already going right here. Anyway, this is super eclectic, original, and executed to perfection. It scratches a primordial itch I have for this kind of theatrical maximalism and avant-garde sensibilities. Fair to say this album is a modern classic (even though it literally came out a little more than 24 hours ago).