Kaczynski


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Many people have said he was a bad person, but no one can say he was wrong.

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    His targets were wrong. He sent bombs to some literally who smalltime computer store guy. Rather than tech millionaires or someone more influential. This is why I think he was a psyop. Have you guys noticed that? All these supposed radicals only go after nobodies. They never attack the status quo, the powers that be.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      His goal was to get published, which he did. Doesn't really matter who he targeted because it achieved his goal.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is morally wrong in a typical sense to commit attacks, however his attacks were not intended to cripple or destabilize industrial society. They were for publicity.
        You can criticize that any way you feel is right. Is it bad because it would make his ideology radioactive? He stated he didn't care. Does it mean his thesis is so bad that was the only way to get it published? Irrelevant to your complaint.

        His ideology is tainted by those attacks.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          On the contrary, he explicitly says an anti-tech movement needs total commitment and willingness to do literally anything to destroy. His view is that non committed people need to be actively turned away so that they don't dilute the true anti-tech radicals.

          He's fully aware that destroying all power generation and fuel production would lead to massive death tolls and suffering.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          by that logic liberalism is tainted by the French Revolution

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes? The French Revolution led to an even stronger form of autocracy.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              yeah I know. what I'm saying is most people like a murderous ideology so that is no grounds for criticism of Ted K.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It is morally wrong in a typical sense to commit attacks, however his attacks were not intended to cripple or destabilize industrial society. They were for publicity.
      You can criticize that any way you feel is right. Is it bad because it would make his ideology radioactive? He stated he didn't care. Does it mean his thesis is so bad that was the only way to get it published? Irrelevant to your complaint.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        you o know he was debilitatingly autistic, right? If anything this isn't a failure by society, but by his support group for not getting him enough help

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Have you guys noticed that?
      Yes. It's very blatant in the current year. Then? Maybe. Difficult to say. If Kaczynski was a psyop, it was one of the properly executed ones because they gave him a good manifesto. The motive in question was to get his writing to the public. So he probably weighed the risks of targeting literal whos vs actually important people. Both would likely have been easy for him but the literal whos were easier to do over the course of the many years he was at large. Under the assumption that he was going to hit one or the other, yeah that was the lesser choice. But I can see an unhinged sort of rationale there. Whereas in the current year everyone is a target except the people everyone hates. And manifestos are becoming increasingly worse, if they exist at all.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      must've pissed him off
      computer people are peak bugmen

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      this he went after cogs instead going after the people on top. People are too preoccupied with making ends meets and putting food on the table to worry about the effect their job might have on the environment.

      i'm all for talking corrupt politicians and rich elite who are knowingly destroying nature out into the streets to be shot. People who just don't care, or think it won't ever effect them in their lifetime.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have said it and given reasons multiple times on this board, however there is no point because you homosexuals are all irrational zoomers who haven’t even read his book. Anyone with half a brain immediately realizes he is retarded

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He had some irrefutable bangers.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Irrefutable

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Irrefutable

        I can refute that:
        Any other age of rapid technological advance didn't suffer this. Extremely can't-see-the-forest argument, taking one tiny slice of something, ignoring all other contrary examples, and then screaming correlation.
        The retard needed to probably specify communication, because that's probably a better answer, but even then, counter examples probably exist.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          What other ages of rapid technological advance exist?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are two industrial revolutions. Check em out. Even the invention of the wheel would've led to all sorts of shit. Also, read it. Ted probably should have too instead of mooching money off his family and making his little bombs.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >There are two industrial revolutions
              Ted's argument is precisely against industrial society, not technology in general. The evolution of technology has always implied changes in society, but as far as we know nothing in History can compare in speed and degree to the changes Industrial Revolutions have caused.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                First, to make it clear what sort of "technology" Kaczynski states is "bad":
                >208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization- dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.
                His idiosyncratic definition of dynamic society is inferred from this passage
                >211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
                Dynamic society can be understood in this context.
                In any case, this does not refute the statement that there have been ages of rapid technological advancements; Kaczynski never said there weren't. When he complains about the rapid age of technological advancement, he's specifically referring to the development of organization-dependent technology that came about through the dynamic society of the West.

                Here's a passage useful for backing up these points:
                >209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory made parts or the facilities of a postindustrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an ice house or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.
                This is the main difference between industrial-technology(good alone but bad on the whole) and small-scale technology(good or neutral).

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have to disagree with him on this, there were pre-industrial technologies that required complex organisation. He also doesn't define what counts as local, if you lived in southern Europe and your job relied on working animal skins that were traded all the way from northern Europe, your product relied on complex and long range trade routes and organisations.

                The problem with his statement there is one of over-simplification, I don't know if the industrial revolution was such a total break with the past. The gist of his argument makes sense though, you could modify it to say that there's a spectrum of technology front the simplest that a single tribe can produce (e.g. knapped flint) to the most complex that require global industry and supply chains (e.g. computers), with many types of technology that require intermediate levels of organisation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The problem with his statement there is one of over-simplification, I don't know if the industrial revolution was such a total break with the past.
                You're right, there is ambiguity. He makes a distinction between pre- and post-industrial society in a broad sense, and that may be a legitimate flaw, but it is clear there is ultimately a perceptible distinction. His main point is that all people are now more or less at the mercy of this system, even if they run into a cabin in the wilderness they are still affected (and as time goes on, more and more so).

                Huh?

                I suppose I mistook you for another anon.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, in many countries you literally *can't* in a cabin in the woods even if you wanted to. In Ted's day, he could just about get by with a post box and working a cash job now and then, and even those are compromises. He said he needed to buy starchy food like oats because the starchy roots that grew wild were in the bottom of the valley where he lived and that was on someone else's property. In a hunter gatherer society that obviously wouldn't have been a problem. Now of course there is less and less wild space, it's either totally developed or atomised into small reserves that can't sustain humans. It's also becoming more and more necessary to have technology that is utterly globalised like banking apps and chipped cards to use your money. I imagine banking cards will disappear eventually and everyday money transfers will be done through portable devices, then eventually implanted divices so even in a cabin by yourself you'll be constantly monitored.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >There are two industrial revolutions.
              >1st
              quickstarted chattel slavery as an economic
              led to the US civil war as 2nd ind rev "industrialists" despised the economic system used by the souther old money from the 1st ind rev
              demolished the communal family unit

              >2nd
              it
              LITERALLY
              brought down the life expectancy of the working class to 35 years.
              THIRTY FIVE FUCKING YEARS
              LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN HUMAN HISTORY
              FUCKING CAVEMEN LIVED FOR LONGER

              >3rd
              caused so much societal unrest in the 70s half the world was under treat of guerrilla terrorism.

              >4th
              took a look at the suicide rates recently?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Kaczynski is only talking about what he terms "dynamic society" and the development of industrial technology. There have been no other ages of rapid technological-industrial development. He even uses the term technological industrial to differentiate it from "neutral" technologies that can be developed at the individual level(Not industrial).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is a dynamic society? I'm curiously how dishonestly this is about to be boxed in.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              First, to make it clear what sort of "technology" Kaczynski states is "bad":
              >208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization- dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.
              His idiosyncratic definition of dynamic society is inferred from this passage
              >211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
              Dynamic society can be understood in this context.
              In any case, this does not refute the statement that there have been ages of rapid technological advancements; Kaczynski never said there weren't. When he complains about the rapid age of technological advancement, he's specifically referring to the development of organization-dependent technology that came about through the dynamic society of the West.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're likely intelligent from your posts, and I think you have good arguments. The thing about Kaczynski's ideology (as outlined in ISaiF) is that it is based on a moral abhorrence for the effects of technology. If you don't see those effects as bad(such as dependence on the industrial system and the reduction of personal freedom associated with that) then that's your personal opinion. It doesn't highlight an objective flaw with his arguments, only that you do not care for the issues he outlines.
              This can be likened to a racist not considering racial discrimination negative, or to a leftist(broadly speaking) not seeing any moral problem with mass immigration and the associated cultural homogenization.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Huh?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              First, to make it clear what sort of "technology" Kaczynski states is "bad":
              >208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization- dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.
              His idiosyncratic definition of dynamic society is inferred from this passage
              >211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
              Dynamic society can be understood in this context.
              In any case, this does not refute the statement that there have been ages of rapid technological advancements; Kaczynski never said there weren't. When he complains about the rapid age of technological advancement, he's specifically referring to the development of organization-dependent technology that came about through the dynamic society of the West.

              I want to know if there is any dishonesty here from LULZs perspective.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Industrial Revolution (and its consequences lol) absolutely destroyed many local communities in England. Cottage industries became economically unviable and many people were forced to work in textile mills or move to cities to work in factories. A lot of knowledge of traditional crafts was lost and peoples' way of life was changed forever. The modern "conservative" is only traditional as far as disliking gays and occasionally going to church. They wholeheartedly support continued industrialisation in pursuit of growth. In fact "conservative" is now inextricably associated with economic neoliberalism and hatred for even paying lipservice to the natural world. This isn't a flaw of character, however, it's a consequence of how technological society works. Truly traditional politicians can't succeed because they're outcompeted by the pro-industry conservatives who can court the money and resources of industry.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            These are small-time consequences. Cottages? The fuck?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Cottage industries, which were the means of living for many people. I think your entire community being upended and being forced into horrible, poorly-paid factory working was a pretty big deal for those people.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >doesn't understand basic terminology like cottage industry
              Go back to playing choo choo trains and leave the discussions to the adults, pal

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Objectively irrefutable. The industrial revolution happened 4 fucking times and each time it took a massive shit on societal status quo.

        >Any other age of rapid technological advance didn't suffer this.
        lol
        lmao

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you. It's hilarious to see this entire culture built off of idolizing him yet when you ask any of these people online or in person whether they've actually read the brief tract that he wrote, they haven't. LULZ zoomers think they're the resistance but don't even realize how their ideology and behavior is entirely sculpted by the drift of the Meme, same as any one of the mainstream simulacrula.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I have said it and given reasons multiple times on this board
      Weird, I haven't seen anything showing he was wrong here. Usually it is just a few misreadings of his text and/or some psychologistic analyzing or appeals to "academic philosophy", as if that refutes anything he said.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not who you're replying to, but if speaking about the manifesto it put forth as an analysis of the technological society with a political message attached. The problem is that it isn't really that interesting; he isn't saying anything new. Conceptualizing the problem of technology as being a problem of freedom is really a very old enlightenment critique. You can sort of sense the conflict within Ted from the fact that he's still stuck within that very discourse. Alone in his cabin in the woods he's still thinking in technical (or technological) enlightenment terms. He ultimately fails to escape the technological society in his thinking and writing.

        Analyses cannot really be graded as being correct or incorrect, but should rather be appreciated by how revealing they are. His analysis is simply very primitive compared to other analyses available. Some 30 years earlier Heidegger, Adorno, Arendt etc. had all presented vastly more penetrating concepts of the technological society. The sad part about Ted is this belatedness; he's really presenting the text as being epochal, but in reality it seems to belong somewhere in the 1800s. The text wasn't groundbreaking, but retrograde. There was no grand insight into the nature of technological society, nor any revealing of the essence of technique. It's just mediocre, not necessarily wrong, just not very interesting or useful. But grasping it in it's context, where there were actually serious radical thinkers in the world dealing with the issue of technology (like Ivan Illich for instance) it just comes across as awfully juvenile.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he posts on LULZ

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pynchon's better

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >be me
      >claim to have all the answers
      >say there is great evil in the world
      >say man has fallen from grace and must redeem himself
      >the end will be upon us unless we do something
      >the solution is art/courage/compassion/strength/acceptance/truth

      A truth as old as history and you keep ignoring it

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        heh I knew I recognized the original

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    anybody who says they think ted kaczynski was right but still posts on LULZ all day is a fucking moron

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      he's right but i'm at that point where i don't give a shit about everything collapsing, it's inevitable and the effort to be the constant opposing force is too high

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >HMMMM INTERESTING YOU CRITICISE SOCIETY YET YOU LIVE IN SOCIETY I AM VERY INTELLIGENT

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You live in a society, you have always lived in a society, and there will never be a day you don't live in a society. No bottom text.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like acting like retards made actual retards take over this site.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      voltaire was right

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No he definitely wasn't. Dunning-Kruger is a normalfag take

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          irony

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      too fucking right mate

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    the problem with his philosophy is that a society cant shun technology, because of the existence of foreign societies who develop their technology and will use it to dominate you

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He already went through this. He explicitly stated that one of the primary issues with destabilzation was that there are other systems that may not critically depend on the destabilized system.One kf his proposed solutions was globalism. By making nations dependent on others it makes it more possible for a domino effect to cascade and destabilize the globe.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >.One kf his proposed solutions was globalism. By making nations dependent on others it makes it more possible for a domino effect to cascade and destabilize the globe.
        And how would it help? The best you could achieve is to revert certain industries by a few decades.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          True. He mentions that as well. The only possibility (he states this) is total societal collapse. But he also acknowledges even that won't bring a necessarily permanent solution, only that it would lead to a "good" world for at least a while.
          >212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know he said it, and my point is that it's unachievable. Reverting some consumer technology markets a few decades back is nowhere near the solution he strives for.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        ok the problem with globalism then is that politicians are ruthless psychopaths who will never let normal people live in peace

        perhaps globalism mediated by an artificial intelligence but that comes with a new set of problems

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's one of the big stumbling blocks. Like the other anon said, he knows it and says an anti-tech movement must be worldwide by necessity and would rely on the system being so interconnected that there would be cascading failure. One reason he shits on ecofascism is because it's race separatist, and obviously a low-tech ethnostate would just be dominated by states with more tech.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Many people have said he was a bad person, but no one can say he was wrong.
    but everyone with a brain knows he´s wrong.

    Only zoomers who get their opinions from youtube idealize this retard.

    the gist of his argument is
    >power can be abused
    >technology gives humanity more power
    >so technology makes humanities suffering even greater in the end

    and that´s it.
    What he doesnt want to acknowledge is that a "natural" environment doesnt exist in the first place. Human bodies arent made to live like a farmer. The
    The best we can do is get freedom by achieving trans humanism as quick as possible and so solving the problem of human suffering.

    Humans cant live like animals, since the very moment they learned how to use fire. Living as a farmer is miserable and everyone besides him knows that.
    Kacinski is just what happens when you break an intelligent person who idealizes some "natural existence" which never existed in the first place. It´s just misanthropic escapism for unhappy stemlords.
    It´s the equivalent of the the successful startup guy from California who tells you he´s solved philosophy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What farmer? The natural human environment is hunter-gatherer. Agriculturalists already fell from grace.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Farming would probably be necessary in a post-collapse scenario, there wouldn't be enough wild game and edible plants left in many areas of the world. Any surviving community that managed to farm enough to survive would easily outcompete their neighbours and would probably be the model for society by necessity.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          By "wouldn't be enough wild game, etc." I mean not even enough to sustain a minimum viable population, obviously billions of people would starve due to the loss of industrialised agriculture in any case.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          By "wouldn't be enough wild game, etc." I mean not even enough to sustain a minimum viable population, obviously billions of people would starve due to the loss of industrialised agriculture in any case.

          True. Kaczynski would consider that the "adjustment phase."
          Once animal and human populations reach a sustainable level with small-scale technology then anything is fine. He doesn't care about the sufferings of working to support your life, such as that of pre-industrial farmer, he cares about the loss of freedom caused by technology.
          A counterargument would be that slaving away to grow food isn't free, but that's a different kind of freedom.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      who said human suffering is a problem to be solved

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that Ukraine still has electricity proves him wrong. Unfortunately the system is not that fragile. We might expect some major setbacks, like the whole global CPU industry can be disrupted if you destroy a couple factories, but there's no way to go beyond 1970s level of everyday technology. It's too decentralized to be susceptible to subversion by anti tech radicals.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really correct because Russia is selectively targeting a few strategic power stations. For example, if they totally annihilated Ukraine's power grid, nuclear power plants across the country would lose power to all their safety systems and would endanger Russia and the areas they control in Ukraine.

      Even taking that into account, Russia's limited targeting of energy production is still causing blackouts that can't be fixed fast enough. Ukraine is already begging western powers for help with repairs. If power generation was targeted in multiple countries and deliberately aimed to *cause* nuclear meltdowns, you'd see a much more dramatic effect.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >like the whole global CPU industry can be disrupted if you destroy a couple factories
      With the amount of second hand CPUs available on the second hand market, it would take years until there is a CPU shortage.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read This Book on a SIlent Hill has a section in it about him

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no one can say he was wrong.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Haven't read Ellul, though I plan to. What were his prescriptions to deal with technology? I've heard his work summarised as advocating for some kind Christian spiritual revolution but the summary didn't explain it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://ellul.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Elluls-1962-Article1.pdf

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    A professor of mine in law school used to correspond with him.
    The first time I was introduced to him, it was with the caveat that he wasn't a lunatic and that his writings made a lot of sense.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tbh the first I time started reading his manifesto it turned me off him because it starts off by making general sweeping statements and quickly starts sounding like an unfounded rant. But later I read Anti-Tech Revolution and it's incredibly clearly argued and makes logical conclusions, it's also as well sourced as it could be for something written in prison. It's far more coherent than many academic pieces I've read. The guy is obviously not a loon.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ted is fine but one really ought to branch out into the other thinkers critical of the technical project.
    Ellul, Postman, Illich, and Mumford at least.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ted specifically wrote to be readable for laypeople who the intellectuals will never reach, so it's not surprising.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but no one can say he was wrong
    Underage illiterate american thread #21269268

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no one can say he was wrong.
    He was a deranged, terroristic eleutheromaniac with no value for human life. Technology will improve, society will continue, and both will remain true regardless of the mad ravings of mass murderers.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem false. Pointless statement, obvious statement, truism ad hominem ad hominem.
      I guess it isn't your fault you don't read.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >eleutheromaniac

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. And?

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Yes. And?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What is the point of this, exactly?

      >Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem false. Pointless statement, obvious statement, truism ad hominem ad hominem.
      I guess it isn't your fault you don't read.

      >fallacy fallacy fallacy
      >ur dum
      As expected...

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    People like Ted view culture not as a mode of emergent transformation that discloses deeper and wider worlds, but primarily a distorting force that conceals and contorts both a pure nature and their truly pristine selves. Culture is not a transformative emergence of greater differentiation/integration that can go too far into dissociation/alienation. No, culture is primarily an alienating force that necessarily and nastily separates humans from nature and them from themselves.

    And so above all, they must get away from culture and get back to nature, back to a wilderness that expresses a pure nature and their own most authentic impulses. Culture is fundamentally a crime of distortion, and they must seek behind this distortion for the truth of pure nature and the truth of their pure selves.

    That culture (and the rational-ego) can indeed repress and dissociate natural/libidinal impulses is true enough, and those alienated impulses need to be recontacted, freed from the cultural repressions, and reintegrated into the psyche (regression in service of the ego). But when culture is seen as only or primarily a repressive force, then the cure is regression, period, and this is the self-defeating and self-contradictory stance that Ted and his acolytes embrace.

    They claim that for our salvation, we are to retreat, not prior to the dissociation, but prior to the differentiation that had allowed the dissociation: not simply prior to the disease, but prior to the depth itself!—which amounts to: cure the disease by becoming more shallow.

    The Ego-Enlightenment set out to free Eros from its heteronomy, its immersion in conformist and herd mentalities; and it sought this autonomy with such force that it went too far into alienation, and ended up with Eros degenerating into Phobos: seeking freedom, it found only fear and alienation, which bound it even more tightly to that which it wished to transcend.

    And the Eco camp, so intensely desiring insertion into a Larger Life, an Agape that embraces the depth of the Kosmos with joyful Love and Care, ends up scraping layers and layers of depth off the universe in search of the primal ground where this insertion can occur: it reduces the deeper and higher to the lower and shallower, a reduction and regression and leveling that, by any other name, is Thanatos. In search of a larger life, it finds only a morbid death (i.e., a lesser depth), a rancid leveling of just those differentiations that allowed the search in the first place.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your post intelligently follows a premise to its conclusion. It was very interesting, and it would be true if the premise were also true; that being "people like Ted" view culture as a distorting force.
      Culture is as much a part of nature as the humans it grows from. The sole issue is technology, the way it causes human society to align, and the inevitable effects on the human psyche.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Technology and culture are inseperable.

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    He was overtly idealistic

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    He may have stated some empirical facts, but his ability to connect with accuracy and precision as to their true nature them was severely malformed. Really disappointed in anons for falling for his grift. Cultivate more perspectives please.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it finally happening

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    He's kinda like those retards throwing soup at the louvre. It doesn't really figure if they're right or wrong, because either way they are assholes. I must admit Ted had a greater aesthetic sense though; but trying to survive by oneself in the woods in an ultimately unsustainable way is just as vapid of a political action as podcasting on the internet. If you wanna start a grassroots political movement it has to be predicated on social commitment, that's really where he went wrong. The whole thing is but prideful ascetics if done alone.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *