Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Somebody please smack that hippy, peace loving, left wing, clinton knob slobbing, know nothing, sport climbing, retard Dr. Flash Amazing into his grave. It's all out war. Kill the Iraquis and the Afghans! Just because we're pissed and flexing our muscles, is all the reason we need. Yeah who cares who dies over there? I don't!. Kill them fucks and let's start with you being target number one! Quote
RobBob Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Touche'...but, hell, I'm an old guy and I don't have the patience to read ya but so much. I know the rest of this cranked-up, ADD crowd ain't readin' but one line per post of you and the Dear Dr... Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Wait, can't you solve this by talking to him? You might understand if you heard his side. Such a good point, Gag W. It would be much more, uh, manly and American if the Doctor simply resorted to bashing anyone he disagreed with. Civlity and discussion are such weak ways of solving problems, after all. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by RopeGunHooker: I don't need to justify killing. Therefore I think we should start with killing Dr Flash Amazing. Someone zap this character off the boards. Waaaahhhhhh!!! Bitchy tough-talking murder advocate doesn't like DFA! Waaaahhhhhh!!! Did someone forget to feed you today, Mr. Fussyface? Quote
MtnGoat Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 That's cool, I understand where you're coming from long posts can be a pain. As for the guy saying we should just kill everyone and not care, that's real cynical and all, but the reality is a bit different. Not one person I am aware of thinks this is acceptable, not Bush, not I, not anyone. Quote
Greg_W Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: quote:Originally posted by Greg W: Wait, can't you solve this by talking to him? You might understand if you heard his side. Such a good point, Gag W. It would be much more, uh, manly and American if the Doctor simply resorted to bashing anyone he disagreed with. Civlity and discussion are such weak ways of solving problems, after all. The point is, if you pose a threat the time for talk is over. It's go time!! Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by flick: Somebody please smack that hippy, peace loving, left wing, clinton knob slobbing, know nothing, sport climbing, retard Dr. Flash Amazing into his grave. It's all out war. Kill the Iraquis and the Afghans! Just because we're pissed and flexing our muscles, is all the reason we need. Yeah who cares who dies over there? I don't!. Kill them fucks and let's start with you being target number one! Brilliant thesis you've got there! Keep up the good thinking, sport! Lunch time! Quote
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Why don't you try eating a can of SHUT THE FUCK UP!! for lunch. Quote
MtnGoat Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 now there's a great example of someone who probably claims to "care" about all kinds of people in abstract, but when it comes to particulars is hyper abusive of those who disagree. Unfortunately a common species. Quote
rbw1966 Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 I'd much rather listen to DFA's contribution to the debate then your showcase of Tourrettes Syndrome. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by flick: Why don't you try eating a can of SHUT THE FUCK UP!! for lunch. Oh, you're a hoot! Stop, you're going to make the Doctor laugh so hard Pad Se Ew comes out his nose! Quote
allthumbs Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 This thread blows chunks. I suggest dragging it on for another 20-30 pages .... that'd be stylin' -- Quote
Necronomicon Posted September 19, 2002 Author Posted September 19, 2002 What do you think of my new offensive avatar image? Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Well, we could change the topic. Trask, why don't you share with the group what you'd like to talk about! Weren't you just saying something the other day about some new chicken lube or some such? Quote
Necronomicon Posted September 19, 2002 Author Posted September 19, 2002 I think Trask is a touch jealous of MY creation. It is only through my awesome creative powers that any of this has happened. Truly offensive!! Quote
allthumbs Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 I liked this thread for about the first three pages. Now the fucker keeps dragging on with a few (unnamed WANKERS) pseudo-philosophic bullshit and PeeWee Hermanish tilt on life. Bahhhh I'd rather talk about pussy and climbing. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Then why don't you interject something about climbing, pussy? Quote
daisy Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 I just bought me 4 new black thongs to wear when I go rock climbing. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 Here's a silly song to go with a new black thong Have you ever heard of a wish sandwich? A wish sandwich is the kind of a sandwich where you have two slices of bread and you, hee hee hee, wish you had some meat... Bow bow bow... Ummm... the other day I had a ricochet biscuit. A ricochet biscuit is the kind of a biscuit that's supposed to bounce back off the wall into your mouth. If it don't bounce back... you go hungry! Bow bow bow... Umm, umm, umm... the other day I had a cool water sandwich and a Sunday-go-to-meetin' bun... Bow bow bow... Hee hee hee hee... What da ya want for nothing? ... a rubber biscuit? Bow bow bow... Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 quote: Originally posted by daisy: I just bought me 4 new black thongs to wear when I go rock climbing. Quote
Necronomicon Posted September 19, 2002 Author Posted September 19, 2002 Do you like my super offensive avatar image? Uncle Reagan sure was a bad dude, although he made his buddys RICH, RICH, RICH, just like G. W. Maggot, who'll soon have a big ol' pile of rotten Iraqi flesh to borrow his slick litte maggot form through, while his howling minions fight for scraps and bark at a blood shrouded moon. But hey, how about that new "Avalanche"? Pretty, sweet, huh? I wonder how many starving Afghan children could be fed by the energy resources squandered in the creation of such a monstrosity. Hence.. “But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence . . . truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” —Feuerbach, Preface to the second edition of The Essence of Christianity 1 In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived is now merely represented in the distance. 2 The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudoworld that can only be looked at. The specialization of images of the world evolves into a world of autonomized images where even the deceivers are deceived. The spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the nonliving. 3 The spectacle appears simultaneously as society itself, as a part of society, and as a means of unification. As a part of society, it is ostensibly the focal point of all vision and consciousness. But due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is in reality the domain of delusion and false consciousness. The unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of universal separation. 4 The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images. 5 The spectacle cannot be understood as a mere visual deception produced by mass-media technologies. It is a worldview that has actually been materialized. 6 Understood in its totality, the spectacle is both the result and the goal of the dominant mode of production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all its particular manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment — the spectacle represents the dominant model of life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere of production and in the consumption implied by that production. In both form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system. The spectacle also represents the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes the majority of the time spent outside the production process. 7 Separation is itself an integral part of the unity of the world, of a global social practice split into reality and image. The social practice confronted by an autonomous spectacle is at the same time the real totality which contains that spectacle. But the split within this totality mutilates it to the point that the spectacle seems to be its goal. The language of the spectacle consists of signs of the dominant system of production — signs which are at the same time the ultimate end-products of that system. 8 The spectacle cannot be abstractly contrasted to concrete social activity; each side of such a duality is itself divided. The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless a real product of that reality. Conversely, real life is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle, and ends up absorbing it and aligning itself with it. Objective reality is present on both sides. Each concept established in this manner has no other basis than its transformation into its opposite: reality emerges within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real. This reciprocal alienation is the essence and support of the existing society. 9 In a world that is really turned upside down, the true is a moment of the false. 10 The concept of “the spectacle” interrelates and explains a wide range of seemingly unconnected phenomena. The apparent diversities and contrasts of these phenomena stem from the social organization of appearances, whose essential nature must itself be recognized. Considered in its own terms, the spectacle is an affirmation of appearances and an identification of all human social life with those appearances. But a critique that grasps the spectacle’s essential character reveals it to be a visible negation of life — a negation of life that has taken on a visible form. 11 In order to describe the spectacle, its formation, its functions, and the forces that work against it, it is necessary to make some artificial distinctions. In analyzing the spectacle we are obliged to a certain extent to use the spectacle’s own language, in the sense that we have to move through the methodological terrain of the society that expresses itself in the spectacle. For the spectacle is both the meaning and the agenda of our particular socio-economic formation. It is the historical moment in which we are caught. 12 The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply. 13 The tautological character of the spectacle stems from the fact that its means and ends are identical. It is the sun that never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the globe, endlessly basking in its own glory. 14 The society based on modern industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist. In the spectacle — the visual reflection of the ruling economic order — goals are nothing, development is everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. 15 As indispensable embellishment of currently produced objects, as general articulation of the system’s rationales, and as advanced economic sector that directly creates an ever-increasing mass of image-objects, the spectacle is the leading production of present-day society. 16 The spectacle is able to subject human beings to itself because the economy has already totally subjugated them. It is nothing other than the economy developing for itself. It is at once a faithful reflection of the production of things and a distorting objectification of the producers. 17 The first stage of the economy’s domination of social life brought about an evident degradation of being into having — human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed. The present stage, in which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing — all “having” must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances. At the same time all individual reality has become social, in the sense that it is shaped by social forces and is directly dependent on them. Individual reality is allowed to appear only if it is not actually real. 18 When the real world is transformed into mere images, mere images become real beings — dynamic figments that provide the direct motivations for a hypnotic behavior. Since the spectacle’s job is to use various specialized mediations in order to show us a world that can no longer be directly grasped, it naturally elevates the sense of sight to the special preeminence once occupied by touch; the most abstract and easily deceived sense is the most readily adaptable to the generalized abstraction of present-day society. But the spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds. It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever representation becomes independent, the spectacle regenerates itself. 19 The spectacle inherits the weakness of the Western philosophical project, which attempted to understand activity by means of the categories of vision, and it is based on the relentless development of the particular technical rationality that grew out of that form of thought. The spectacle does not realize philosophy, it philosophizes reality, reducing everyone’s concrete life to a universe of speculation. 20 Philosophy — the power of separate thought and the thought of separate power — was never by itself able to supersede theology. The spectacle is the material reconstruction of the religious illusion. Spectacular technology has not dispersed the religious mists into which human beings had projected their own alienated powers; it has merely brought those mists down to earth, to the point that even the most mundane aspects of life have become impenetrable and unbreathable. The illusory paradise that represented a total denial of earthly life is no longer projected into the heavens, it is embedded in earthly life itself. The spectacle is the technological version of the exiling of human powers into a “world beyond”; the culmination of humanity’s internal separation. 21 As long as necessity is socially dreamed, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of a modern society in chains, and ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep. 22 The fact that the practical power of modern society has detached itself from that society and established an independent empire in the spectacle can only be explained by the additional fact that that powerful practice continued to lack cohesion and had remained in contradiction with itself. 23 The root of the spectacle is that oldest of all social specializations, the specialization of power. The spectacle plays the specialized role of speaking in the name of all the other activities. It is hierarchical society’s ambassador to itself, delivering its official messages at a court where no one else is allowed to speak. The most modern aspect of the spectacle is thus also the most archaic. 24 The spectacle is the ruling order’s nonstop discourse about itself, its never-ending monologue of self-praise, its self-portrait at the stage of totalitarian domination of all aspects of life. The fetishistic appearance of pure objectivity in spectacular relations conceals their true character as relations between people and between classes: a second Nature, with its own inescapable laws, seems to dominate our environment. But the spectacle is not the inevitable consequence of some supposedly natural technological development. On the contrary, the society of the spectacle is a form that chooses its own technological content. If the spectacle, considered in the limited sense of the “mass media” that are its most glaring superficial manifestation, seems to be invading society in the form of a mere technical apparatus, it should be understood that this apparatus is in no way neutral and that it has been developed in accordance with the spectacle’s internal dynamics. If the social needs of the age in which such technologies are developed can be met only through their mediation, if the administration of this society and all contact between people has become totally dependent on these means of instantaneous communication, it is because this “communication” is essentially unilateral. The concentration of these media thus amounts to concentrating in the hands of the administrators of the existing system the means that enable them to carry on this particular form of administration. The social separation reflected in the spectacle is inseparable from the modern state — that product of the social division of labor that is both the chief instrument of class rule and the concentrated expression of all social divisions. 25 Separation is the alpha and omega of the spectacle. The institutionalization of the social division of labor in the form of class divisions had given rise to an earlier, religious form of contemplation: the mythical order with which every power has always camouflaged itself. Religion justified the cosmic and ontological order that corresponded to the interests of the masters, expounding and embellishing everything their societies could not deliver. In this sense, all separate power has been spectacular. But this earlier universal devotion to a fixed religious imagery was only a shared acknowledgment of loss, an imaginary compensation for the poverty of a concrete social activity that was still generally experienced as a unitary condition. In contrast, the modern spectacle depicts what society could deliver, but in so doing it rigidly separates what is possible from what is permitted. The spectacle keeps people in a state of unconsciousness as they pass through practical changes in their conditions of existence. Like a factitious god, it generates itself and makes its own rules. It reveals itself for what it is: an autonomously developing separate power, based on the increasing productivity resulting from an increasingly refined division of labor into parcelized gestures dictated by the independent movement of machines, and working for an ever-expanding market. In the course of this development, all community and all critical awareness have disintegrated; and the forces that were able to grow by separating from each other have not yet been reunited. 26 The general separation of worker and product tends to eliminate any consistent sense of accomplished activity and any direct personal communication between producers. With the increasing accumulation of separate products and the increasing concentration of the productive process, accomplishment and communication are monopolized by the managers of the system. The triumph of this separation-based economic system proletarianizes the whole world. 27 Due to the very success of this separate production of separation, the fundamental experience that in earlier societies was associated with people’s primary work is in the process of being replaced (in sectors near the cutting edge of the system’s evolution) by an identification of life with nonworking time, with inactivity. But such inactivity is in no way liberated from productive activity; it remains dependent on it, in an uneasy and admiring submission to the requirements and consequences of the production system. It is itself one of the consequences of that system. There can be no freedom apart from activity, and within the spectacle activity is nullified — all real activity having been forcibly channeled into the global construction of the spectacle. Thus, what is referred to as a “liberation from work,” namely the modern increase in leisure time, is neither a liberation of work itself nor a liberation from the world shaped by this kind of work. None of the activity stolen by work can be regained by submitting to what that work has produced. 28 The reigning economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technologies are based on isolation, and they contribute to that same isolation. From cars to television, the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the conditions that engender “lonely crowds.” With ever-increasing concreteness the spectacle recreates its own presuppositions. 29 The spectacle was born from the world’s loss of the unity, and the immense expansion of the modern spectacle reveals the enormity of this loss. The abstractifying of all individual labor and the general abstractness of what is produced are perfectly reflected in the spectacle, whose manner of being concrete is precisely abstraction. In the spectacle, a part of the world presents itself to the world and is superior to it. The spectacle is the common language of this separation. Spectators are linked solely by their one-way relationship to the very center that keeps them isolated from each other. The spectacle thus reunites the separated, but it reunites them only in their separateness. 30 The alienation of the spectator, which reinforces the contemplated objects that result from his own unconscious activity, works like this: The more he contemplates, the less he lives; the more he identifies with the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own life and his own desires. The spectacle’s estrangement from the acting subject is expressed by the fact that the individual’s gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else who represents them to him. The spectator does not feel at home anywhere, because the spectacle is everywhere. 31 Workers do not produce themselves, they produce a power independent of themselves. The success of this production, the abundance it generates, is experienced by the producers as an abundance of dispossession. As their alienated products accumulate, all time and space become foreign to them. The spectacle is the map of this new world, a map that is identical to the territory it represents. The forces that have escaped us display themselves to us in all their power. 32 The spectacle’s social function is the concrete manufacture of alienation. Economic expansion consists primarily of the expansion of this particular sector of industrial production. The “growth” generated by an economy developing for its own sake can be nothing other than a growth of the very alienation that was at its origin. 33 Though separated from what they produce, human beings nevertheless produce every detail of their world with ever-increasing power. They thus also find themselves increasingly separated from that world. The closer their life comes to being their own creation, the more they are excluded from that life. 34 The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point that it becomes images. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 19, 2002 Posted September 19, 2002 what a waste of time and space do you actually believe 99% of the climbers that read this shit will take the time to peruse that refuse? ha!! i think not go have some breakfast and orange juice see ya! Quote
Necronomicon Posted September 19, 2002 Author Posted September 19, 2002 You seem to have wasted your time on it, at least enough to decide that it was "refuse". By wasting a bit of your time, I have acheived my ultimate goal. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.