Alt Text










how it feels recreating a post in the middle of a thread and throwing the counter off
sad hobo ant guy
1 replies

no better conditions for yapping than caffeine and a long drive
All Recordings
trip-4-leg-2
20:50
53:29
trip-4-leg-1
17:41
2:01:28
1 replies


yes this is a @maedasalt.bsky.social reference (at least in part)
https://soundcloud.com/maedasalt
maedasalt
Seattle, WA, United States
2,470 Followers - 46 Following
nightcore princess since 2011. ♥
https://maedasalt.bandcamp.com/
https://x.com/maedasalt
https://open.spotify.com/artist/1VeHaz98PQfoCvbckwADdk
https://k7gendo.weebly.com/maedasalt.html
1 replies

kasey and i got put on the same project at work
willow 17:01
it's so funny i thought there'd be like at least one more guy but nah
i'm just hanging with kitty at work
kasey 17:03
it's wild
we can log cuddling with pods work
willow 17:03
yoooii
:3
kasey
17:03
team building
we'll be the first ts to ever log a handjob 7091

discord ui update scared me for a sec
diary >
3 members
offline - 3
dreary3
mellow2
willow


alt text backfill
Self-Consumption
Out of ownness, the owner consumes its properties, rendering them nothing. That is, it incorporates otherness into itself, and affirms its own power as unique. It seems as though the owner exists both outside and inside its own activity of consumption.
Outside, since it exists separate from its property, consuming it as its own; inside, since the owner is not grounded by some transcendental ego, but only exists in its activity. Where, then, is the I? Is it a black hole that absorbs everything into itself? Is it a fixed point, an absolute ground, an ontological substance?
"The I is not all, but destroys all," Stirner remarks. "Only the self-dissolving I, the never-being I, the-finite I is actually I."88 The actual, finite I is not a stable ground of action or consumption.
Rather, it is produced through its consumption, and consumed through its production. Produced, since the I emerges out of the singular history of its own consumption. And consumed, because the I dissolves into the temporal stream of its own production. Circulating through production and consumption, Stirner's "self-dissolving I" takes on and discards multiple forms of appearance, but always circles back to the creative nothing at the center of its ownness.

I. To begin from myself means owning these presuppositions of history, these conditions of what I am and what I could be, consuming them, discarding them, becoming something else.
Never satisfied with one constellation of property and self, the owner consumes itself as its consumes the world.
In other words, for the owner to remain its own, it must tirelessly ward off its own petrification into something alien, dead. It must dissolve itself whenever it becomes fixed in one form, one identity. That means, it must become food to itself,
In order to make sense of Stirner's unique understanding of the I, one should first differentiate it from Fichte's superficially similar use of the same term. A Fichtean interpretation of Stirner would consider the I to be a fundamental a priori principle- that from which the particular I that I am could be deduced. Stirner's
"I", however, is always mine first, never transcendental. Fichte's
"I" is a condition of possibility for experience as such. Stirner's I is not a pri iple or thesis in the construction of any theoretical system, but a moment in a phenomenological description of experience from the first-person singular perspectivel Although both depart from the I, Stirner a
Fichte's
conceptions are distinct in terms of form and function, content and method. Fichte's transcendental "I", according to Stirner, makes the same error as Feuerbach does with "humanity" and Marx does with "species-being": it imposes an ahistorical and external form on the dynamic content of my existence; it attempts to determine the essence and limits of my experience according to an identity or principle alien to me. It is, in short, an identification of the non-identical. The reasons for this are not just philosophical, but

Spinoza's definition can be of great help: he singularity of a thing is not just the transposition of its singular extended body into an individual identity, rather a singular thing can be any number of individual bodies which, in one action, collectively cause a single effectl At first this seems blurred. Are we not conflating causal mo on with individual identity? In fact, that is exactly what we are doing, and it is nevertheless an incredibly
thing. Decoupling the meaning of singular from the meaning of individual shatters the conception of identity as a property of an individual. An individual does not have an identity except in its relation to a series of causes and effects which are determined by other individuals, which themselves have no identity except in their relation to a series of causes and effects, and so on ad infinitum. The identity of an individual is not then based on an internal property, but on an external relation of action and effect.
How can many things be one individual, and how can many individuals be one singular thing? Through their composition in forming a single effect, whether or not their individual causes are completely different.

JACOB BLUMENFELD
ALL THINGS ARE NOTHING TO ME
THE UNIQUE PHILOSOPHY OF MAX STIRNER
zero books

retvrn to 2021 willow
2021-08-11

This is a post by another user.

View in bsky.app
1 replies
have a few more
2021-01-07
2020-09-23
2021-10-14
2021-10-14



you really enabled pvp for this one
everybody can reply


depressed willow posts give off the vibes of this old picrew now that i have the 🩷 label
1 replies

on this episode of “marx failed to consider”
Carlo Lancellotti @_CLancellotti •1d
Arguably, the real alienation people experience today is not the one Marx imagined (alienation from the fruits of one's own labor), but rather alienation from our fellow human beings due to radical non-belonging fostered by capitalist globalization.

https://x.com/_clancellotti/status/1924467554552103022
1 replies

the willow shopping experience
and she's like what's the willow shopping experience &im like oh yeah she kind of turns into a partner pokemon follower 3 ft behind u on her phone sksksksks
Edited 19:18
signal dms w annie

jojo ur so real 4 this
ninety9lives album 97 level up

chris poirier - secret sauce
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YuGHUUBDIlE
1 replies




*a is kinda comff today
dssctveself - how to inflict the most psychological damage possible
67 views 2mo ago ...more
drifting away 292 subscribers
7 likes




alt text backfill
william james, the meaning of truth, the will to believe, is life worth living

Consider a poor dog whom they are vivisecting in a laboratory. He lies strapped on a board and shrieking at his executioners, and to his own dark consciousness is literally in a sort of hell. He cannot see a single redeeming ray in the whole business; and yet all these diabolical-seeming events are often controlled by human intentions with which, if his poor benighted mind could only be made to catch a glimpse of them, all that is heroic in him would religiously acquiesce. Healing truth, relief to future sufferings of beast and man, are to be bought by them. It may be genuinely a process of redemption. Lying on his back on the board there he may be performing a function incalculably higher than any that prosperous canine life admits of; and yet, of the whole performance, this function is the one portion that must remain absolutely beyond his ken.

come to what is the soul of my discourse. Religion has meant many things in human history, but when from now onward I use the word I mean to use it in the supernaturalist sense, as declaring that the so-called order of nature that constitutes this world's experience is only one portion of the total Universe, and that there stretches beyond this visible world an unseen world of which we now know nothing positive, but in its relation to which the true significance of our present mundane life consists. A man's religious faith
broad. What then do we now mean by the religious hypothesis? Science says things are; morality says some things are better than other things; and religion says essentially two things. First, she says that the best things are the more eternal things, the overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak, and say the final word. "Perfection is eternal,"-this phrase of Charles Secrétan seems a good way of putting this first affirmation of religion, an affirmation which obviously cannot yet be verified scientifically at all. The second affirmation of religion is that we are better off even now if we believe her first affirmation to be true.

'THE TRUE, to put it very briefly, IS ONLY THE EXPEDIENT IN THE WAY OF OUR THINKING, JUST AS THE RIGHT IS ONLY THE EXPEDIENT IN THE WAY OF OUR BEHAVING. Expedient in almost any fashion, and expedient in the long run and on the whole, of course; for

William James January 11, 1842 - August 26, 1910) was an American philosopher and psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States. James is considered to be a leading thinker of the late 19th century, one of the most influential philosophers of the United States, and the "Father of American psychology."



we gettin rowdy
HUZZAH! GLORY BE! RE: Financial Reporting
MY GOAT!!MY KING!! THANK YOU!!
a buncha kaomoji
outlook email








i dunno, i shouldn’t say i love you too cause i’m not over my ex from ‘22 and i, i thought, i thought that we were through and i thought that id be fine until i met you
i dunno, i shouldn’t say i love you too
cause i’m not over my ex from ‘22
and i, i thought, i thought that we were through
and i thought that id be fine until i met you

how many times are you texting my phone and
i don’t know why you won’t let me go
you @ me and tell me you love me so
until you’re gone again, that’s how it always ends

https://soundcloud.com/blehh2/ex-from-22
blehh - ex from ‘22
@helpijustrobbedabank