Cȯsꭑọ ∴ ọꭑƨȯƆ @cosmiccitizen@schelling.pt

I'm considering becoming intensely negative about negativity itself. Just an absolute freak. A drama-llama who goes into hysterics against negative thinking. Catastrophizing every case of catastrophizing. We're never getting over this.

a podcast,, where the host's talk about subjects we're ALL familiar with but their really raunchy and ruude about it !
COULD BE A BIG IDEA

It's absolutely incredible how much you can eat if you just stick to protein, veggies, fruit, AND POTATOES.

So anyway I'm proposing that in a profoundly enmeshed community, a "quantitative" individuation (I, me, and mine) might not be possible. Instead identity might be borrowed from a "quantitative" totality (us, we, and ours). And what is borrowed from the totality is a "relational" individuation (filial piety, role, and rite).

Mimetic rivalry in a differentiated kin group: "Mom always liked you best."

Mimetic rivalry in an enmeshed kin group: "Let's all scapegoat the Smith family."

Let's say that you're imagining a really enmeshed kin-group that has to rely on each other for everything, down to the basics of survival. It basically enmeshes everyone emotionally and any particular person only gets to *borrow* identity or role from this family-system, which basically has narcissism at the group level.

It seems obvious to me that the whole thing must push mimetic rivalry to the kin-group level. Only the most subtle kinds of mimetic rivalry are safe inside such a system.

But the Confucian system doesn't seem to take place in a much more enmeshed social reality -- one in which an assertion of independence would bring overpowering social sanction, &therefore the individual achieves identity through ritual and deference. Seems like a totally different polarity.

Maybe Fukuyama's *Identity* book covers this? His "political order" project took China as the normative case, so maybe he loosens up on his neoplatonic shtick. IDK let me know if you have recommendations.

Having trouble finding something that critiques Girard from a (neo)Confucian perspective. It feels pretty basic to point out that the basic constitution of individuality in the Girardian system occurs through control of an external referent and defended against mimetic rivalry.

My boomer WWC neighbor is bumping Eminem

"Excitotoxicity" seems pretty darn close to what the kids these days call "fried."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamate_hypothesis_of_schizophrenia

Anybody else hate having to maintain focused attention on a long-term complex symbolic task for hours at a time?

Behold, the modern successor to the Mysteries of Eleusis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfA3ivLK_tE

No paper in psychology will ever be cited as much as that goddamn gorilla in the basketball video. When this civilization is a distant memory there will be reports of that video circulating, attesting incredible epiphanic power to it like it was the Oracle at fucking Delphi.

Whereof there is glitch, therefrom will be ornamentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLx3RYL2TnY

Specifically thinking of Heidegger and Hamann, but examples abound.

Deeply disappointing to turn to a new chapter on an old philosopher and discover the antisemitic tirades. I'm not especially squeamish, but in many of these cases the philosopher will very clearly declare "This antisemitism is very important to my project and you do not understand me unless you buy into my antisemitism." OK then, guess I'll move on.

Developing an elaborate version of sovereign citizenship based on the illegitimacy of Rhode Island's government derived from the 1663 charter, the wrongly decided Luther v. Borden precedent, the Newport Tower conspiracy theory, and John Dee's "General and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation."

“For what is the highly touted reason with its omnipotence, infallibility, effusiveness, certainty, and evidence? An Ens rationis , an **oil god,** to which a shrill superstition of irrationality imputes divine attributes.”

The oil god modernity manifested: