Yeah, I'd say it's basically chan culture and oh so Deleuzian attitudes (at least for me). It's nice to step out of your meatspace costume, I guess.
-
-
But there is something important here for me. Can one actually step of his/her meatspace costume by just adopting online anonymity? You see, I think of this in terms of people who say that oh we don't believe in self but then they go on and become the most egotistic people.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @great_old_ones_ and
I think you're missing some gradient here, R. Being faceless is just one element anons use to get to the point of writing in order to have no face.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tobias_ewe @great_old_ones_ and
Care to elaborate? Shedding face to me is not the outcome of wearing an online mask but the result of a personal struggle with oneself that finally brings you to this ethical conclusion, that having a face is not important. It's redundant.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
I think the basic disagreement stems here: you see facelessness as the outcome of a subjects' bildungsroman, you are a hopeless dialectical fanatic. A lot of people here read facelessness as abrupt exit and ex nihilo reinvention, not the consequential outcome of their struggle.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @tobias_ewe and
It has nothing to do whatsoever with dialectic. Look at the history of ethics, Cynics, Confucians, Stoics, etc. To shed one's face take time. It has nothing to with dialectics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @great_old_ones_ and
It seems to me there is this resurrected illusion which is actually quite religious its base, that if we had the right moment and means either given by nature, god, internet or capitalism, we could remove our faces and dissolve the ego. Unfortunately, this is not how it works.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
Nope, I'd say that it all boils down to how much importance you give to the pre-conscious subroutines of face-building. Some people believe that they are crucially important and even the most quotidian loggin on gnaws at your face somehow. It's clearly not your case.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @tobias_ewe and
What do you mean by pre-conscious subroutines of face building? If neuroscience gives us one and only one lesson is that humans are not good at tapping into these sub-routines.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
And that would be precisely the moment where I would say: "yeah, and that's why inconsequential facelessness could happen for contingent reasons which are, at the moment, beyond our grasp". But I think that you need to state your case more clearly because I think I lost you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
All this stuff about shedding self and face is just egotistic gerrymandering and nothing more. Mental autonomy (freedom indifferent to ego) in the sense that Epictetus, Kant and Hegel talk about can only be achieved through a system of ethical actions which is time-consuming.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
Ok, so let's set the record straight. I think that the basic disagreement is that you are talking about mental autonomy (which I characterized as dialectical as in the growth of autonomy through practical struggle) and I'm talking about anonimity or taking up another personality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @NegarestaniReza and
or with little effort. That's why, as far as I can see, the first rules out the sub-personal side of things, while the other doesn't and even relies on them at times.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.