Jack

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@cmichelio in immediacies. But what happens when we lose all our intuitions, and merely react to easy external phenomena?

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@cmichelio tell. ``Hey, what you complainin' about? It look good to me; yup''.) And, anyway, it's just so in line with the current ball of contradictions that we call `thinking' that, so it goes, you don't actually need to know anything to know something: gone are intuitions, bring

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@DeepDishEnjoyer and just to add, what does that mean for Bayesian updating of prior probabilities? Does there not need to be a kind of transcendent judge to judge what counts as new evidence? Maybe evidence gets meaning only relative to a framework

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@DeepDishEnjoyer not only ``what's the good in being intelligent if you lose'', but questioning the value of intelligence in light of losing.)

Like I said, the thing detaches from the effect it has on you. `Intellectualism' becomes a natural enemy: the mathematician advising you to persevere in

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@DeepDishEnjoyer form of money and money too becomes more and more free---and they horde all these signs.

It's an ideology of real slow-down spoken with words of acceleration.

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@DeepDishEnjoyer up on their promises -- they don't have to back up anything they say! that's the end point of this perspective -- it's actually vast nihilistic drill where nothing happens, where production ceases.

It's an economy of free signs (free in the physical sense)---everything takes the

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@mycoliza quality may still be in the hands of individuals.

[Jack @Jackw1549]

@mycoliza capitalists pour capital into is funneled out and maintained by a superior aesthetic vision.) But, on the whole, the quality of things get worse.

There's something quite reassuring (and not in a coping way I might add---real conditions ensure aesthetic poverty) in the idea that