from the STORM to its far range of affect
With the Apocalypse, Christianity invents a completely new image of power: the system of Judgment.

Gilles Deleuze, “Nietzsche and Saint Paul, Lawrence and John of Patmos”

Nietzsche’s eternal returnthe new Apocalypse?

(via crematedadolescent)

watching Pain and Gain. the best American film about America i can possibly imagine, and putting all you “michael bay isn’t a satirist” folks to REST for the last time.  


Quinn is the Wagner-guy so. He’s a Nazi, don’t trust him. Nietzsche is the good guy, fuck Wagner, case closed!


Quinn is the Wagner-guy so. He’s a Nazi, don’t trust him. Nietzsche is the good guy, fuck Wagner, case closed!

1.1 gallons of water per almond

what are the relations between law/legal order and anarchism?



"Moral coding and ethical systems do not formulate a Judgment"


Wagner’s “Parsifal,” director François Girard, Metropolitan Opera. Images: Ken Howard 

See high-res.

Second favorite production!! For all you zizekians out there


“Parsifal I”, 1973, Anselm Kiefer.


Parsifal I”, 1973, Anselm Kiefer.

No, suicide is still a hypothesis. I claim the right to doubt suicide the same way I doubt the rest of reality. For the instant and until further notice, one must horrifically doubt not existence, strictly speaking, which is within the grasp of pretty much anyone, but the internal undermining and the profound sensitivity of things, of acts, of reality. I believe in nothing to which I’m not attached by the sensitivity of a thinking and meteoric cord, and even so I am lacking a few too many meteors in action. The constructed and feeling existence of all men bothers me, and I resolutely abominate all reality. Suicide is nothing but the fabulous and far-off conquest of men who think straight, but the state itself is incomprehensible to me. The suicide of a neurasthenic lacks any representative value, but the mental state of a man who would have carefully determined his suicide, the material circumstances, and the moment of the pulling of the trigger is marvelous. I am ignorant of things, I am ignorant of everything concerning the human state; nothing of the world revolves for or in me. I suffer terribly from life. I can’t attain any state. And it is absolutely certain that I have long been dead: I already committed suicide. That is to say, I was suicided. But what would you think of an anterior suicide, of a suicide that would make us go back to where we started, but to the other side of existence and not that of death. That one alone would be of value to me. I have no appetite for death; I feel an appetite to not be, to never descend into the pleasures of the imbecilities, abdications, renunciations and obtuse encounters that are the self of Antonin Artaud and are much weaker than he. The self of that wandering sick man who from time to time proposes his shadow, upon which he himself has for a long time spit, this dragging, lame self, this virtual and impossible self, that even so finds itself in reality. No one has felt his weakness so much as he, which is the principal and essential weakness of humanity. To be destroyed, to not exist.
Antonin Artaud, in response to the inquiry “Is Suicide a Solution?,” published in issue no. 2 of La Révolution Surréaliste, January 15th, 1925 (via ljosio)


Upon reviewing all of GlaxoSmithKline’s data from both published and unpublished trials of the antidepressant paroxetine*, researchers found the drug provided almost no benefits over placebo for either depression or anxiety, according to a study in PLOS One.

The Wayne State University researchers, in collaboration with Harvard’s Irving Kirsch, stated that evaluating the efficacy of antidepressant medications on depression and anxiety has until now been hampered by a lack of access to pharmaceutical companies’ unpublished trials. “Here, for the first time, we assess the efficacy of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in the treatment of both anxiety and depression, using a complete data set of all published and unpublished trials sponsored by the manufacturer.”

They found that the published literature tended to overestimate the efficacy of the drug, and overall the drug provided tiny benefits of only 2-3 points** on common rating scales for depression and anxiety — much of which was due to placebo effects. “The available empirical evidence indicates that paroxetine provides only a modest advantage over placebo in treatment of anxiety and depression,” they wrote. “We demonstrated that individuals given placebo exhibited 79% of the magnitude of change compared to paroxetine.”

“These findings have important clinical implications,” the researchers commented. “The obvious alternative for the treatment of both anxiety and depression is psychotherapy intervention. However, direct comparisons of acute phase treatment for pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of major depression generally have yielded no significant differences between the treatment modalities. Fewer clinical trials have directly compared antidepressants and psychotherapy in the treatment of anxiety disorders, although the available literature indicates similar comparability between antidepressants and psychotherapy.”

"When given two seemingly equivalent alternatives with regard to symptom reduction, the decision may come down to patient preference and to the safety profile associated with the treatment.""Paroxetine and other SSRIs have also been associated with a number of adverse events during treatment. "

The Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales (Sugarman, Michael A. et al. PLOS One. August 27, 2014. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106337)

*paroxetine is the generic name for SSRI Paxil
**”a recent analysis of raw data from 43 antidepressant trials [50] compared HRSD change scores with clinician ratings of improvement on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) [51] to establish the clinical relevance of HRSD scores. They found that change of three points or less on the HRSD corresponded to a clinician rating of “No Change” on the CGI. That is, changes of three points or less did not correspond to a clinically detectable change according to this clinician-rated measure. Thus, the drug-placebo differences that have been observed in the current and previous antidepressant meta-analyses [7], [28], while statistically significant, appear to be of marginal clinical significance.”

{In July 1982} an EIR news brief quoted a prediction by an unnamed psychic that if any attempt should be made on the life of LaRouche, “a list of thirteen well-known political figures, headed by Henry Kissinger, Nancy Kissinger, and Alexander Haig, will meet sudden death by either massive heart attacks or strokes.”
unverified source

It’s too earlyyyyyyy for this shitttttt!


It’s too earlyyyyyyy for this shitttttt!


Zooming in on Reductionism and Extremely Gendered Brains

One of the greatest obstacles to understanding the hard problem of consciousness and the explanatory gap between function and qualia is that we are psychologically conditioned to overlook the destructive compression of reductionism.

Only a person who is familiar with the shape of the State of Texas can fully understand the connect the dots image shown above. I have included an intermediate image between ‘potential Texas’ and the Functional View to show how even a shift in perspective can make identification impossible. In the end, no identification at all is necessary fro a machine to logically connect one dot to the next in an n+1 sequence. No matter how many dots are connected, it is just the same mechanical action. No geometry or memory is required, just a machine that logically associate one point of data with the next.

When we build computations out of that, we can step back and look at all of the dots and say “yes, the computer is drawing Texas, therefore it might know what Texas is.” or “surely the more complex the arrangement of dots, the more likely it is that a computer could develop geometry and visual experiences of shape”, but there is no logical support for that. Each process of the machine can continue on as it has, completing one mindless task after another, including mindless meta-tasks of associating many groups of data points with many other.

When we reduce the reds, blues, and yellows of light to ‘simply’ electromagnetic wavelengths, we are suggesting that some agent is converting a set of colorless data points into a a color. This is the explanatory gap. A surprisingly high percentage of the population has no trouble with outright denying that there is a gap at all, and will insist that color simply “is” the brain’s reaction to processing data about light. They do not see that processing of data need only be an invisible, functional interpretation of logical points, compressible to any kind of labeling scheme we like.

A brain could easily use biochemical, epigenetic, or quantum computation to label its vast oceans of data at high speed without having to invent flavors, colors, or feelings. Colors are not even the best example because visual qualia maps relatively isomorphically to optical measurements. The same is not true for flavors and emotions, which bear almost no resemblance to physics. If we allowed the brain to produce a single dimension of sense, there is no plausible reason to have to produce a second, any more than there would be a reason for a car’s dashboard to make a musical playlist to accompany itself. If for some reason a computer needed to see its own data, and it could somehow magically conjure that into existence out of its ‘complexity’, seeing would be more than enough to fulfill all data compression needs forever.

An interesting explanation for the inability of so many people to recognize the gap between function and qualia may be hinted at in Simon Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) theory of brain types, and Crespi and Badcock’s paper Psychosis and autism as diametrical disorders of the social brain. I have already caught shit for proposing this, as it may sound like I am saying that autism is bad, or that people who favor functionalism are autistic, but that is actually the almost the opposite of what I am saying. What I think the truth is, or might be, is that everyone carries these diametrical potentials (which map to my ACME-OMMM dichotomy, btw) to some extent, and they reflect the continuum of human consciousness, philosophy of mind, and nature itself. This article had this to say about it:

In their forthcoming article in the premier journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Crespi and Badcock present a very convincing case for paranoid schizophrenia as an extreme female brain. Now the whole picture appears to be complete. When your brain is “too male,” too systemizing, too mechanistic, you become autistic. When your brain is “too female,” too empathizing, too mentalistic, you become paranoid schizophrenic. If the extreme male brain of an autistic is “mindblind,” then you might suggest that the extreme female brain of a paranoid schizophrenia is “logicblind.”

Again, to be clear, I am not advocating a clinical reductionism in psychology. I’m not advocating the labeling of autism this or male-female that. This is not about neuroscience or biology for me*, it is about metaphysics and ontology. The difference between representation and presentation, and how they are flipped again and again within nature, and how they are both lenses which define each other.

*I don’t blame people for having a negative reaction to this kind of science, as far as using terms like ‘extreme male brain’ in itself sounds like the product of ‘extreme male’ thinking. It seems crass and inaccurate to go down that road of categorizing people and pathologizing psychological differences as disorders, but I will take what I can get. I think that this research is on to something, regardless of how it may sound.

I actually have a plethora of opinions about this, none of them compatible, ranging from “this is gross” to “gender as functionalist process- hell yeah”

At the end of Being and Nothingness…[,] Being in-itself and Being for-itself were of Being; and this totality of beings, in which they were effected, itself was linked up to itself, relating and appearing to itself, by means of the essential project of human-reality. What was named in this way, in an allegedly neutral and undetermined way, was nothing other than the metaphysical unity of man and God, the relation of man to God, the project of becoming God as the project constituting human-reality. Atheism changes nothing in this fundamental structure.
Jacques Derrida, “The Ends of Man” in Margins of Philosophy (via crematedadolescent)





Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel 

Speaking their lines vs the final product

Why is Vin Diesel looking down? Is he worried he’s gonna forget his line?

Vin Diesel asked the director his inspiration for every line he did and did multiple takes until he was satisfied. He also recorded the line over 1,000 times and also recorded his lines in Mandarin, Portuguese, French, and Spanish so they could use his real voice in those versions. He’s looking at his lines because Vin Diesel is a  dedicated  motherfucking professional

He also walked on stilts while in the studio to get into character

Stalinists and their ilk did not kill because they dreamed great dreams—actually, Stalinists were famous for being rather short on imagination—but because they mistook their dreams for scientific certainties. This led them to feel they had a right to impose their visions through a machinery of violence. Anarchists are proposing nothing of the sort, on either count. They presume no inevitable course of history and one can never further the course of freedom by creating new forms of coercion.
David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (via beanrot)