I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying 🤷♂️.
Would you say that you’re a materialist then, that 'i/I’dea(l)s don’t exist, would that be your “argument” ?
Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning a neodialectic whole may be revealed.
This one above is self-explanatory of course :), but could you please be kind enough to explain :
The subject is contextualised into a subcultural papalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
I don’t understand how consciousness as a totality would be included, thanks :) !
And while i could eventually understand how «textual situationnism» could lead to division in a world who hasn’t found(searched?) how to be united in diversity, i’d say that “your” usage of the word «serves» is a bit too strong for my tastes(, since “you” didn’t meant, like, 100% of what art serves, then it’s all right, i’d agree, just that the emphasis on “involuntariness” could be more marked).
But it turns around the idea that the “real Human” can’t be found, that Idea(l)s don’t exist independently, such as this other informative myth ?
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.
I remember that i’ve played with a website that automatically produced such texts in school once, like 15 years ago, now i’m thanking Google to have given us Chat-GPT(, and the chinese people talk(ed) a lot about a.i. in the few manhuas i’ve read, much more than Japan, Korea, or the West), not saying that you didn’t write this yourself, nor that i really care, i’m just saying 🤷♂️.
Would you say that you’re a materialist then, that 'i/I’dea(l)s don’t exist, would that be your “argument” ?
This one above is self-explanatory of course :), but could you please be kind enough to explain :
I don’t understand how consciousness as a totality would be included, thanks :) !
And while i could eventually understand how «textual situationnism» could lead to division in a world who hasn’t found(searched?) how to be united in diversity, i’d say that “your” usage of the word «serves» is a bit too strong for my tastes(, since “you” didn’t meant, like, 100% of what art serves, then it’s all right, i’d agree, just that the emphasis on “involuntariness” could be more marked).
But it turns around the idea that the “real Human” can’t be found, that Idea(l)s don’t exist independently, such as this other informative myth ?
Since you kept, and still keep replying with nonsensical comments, figured I’d return the favour.
Then cite a sentence that you found nonsensical if you’re interested in this topic, and if not, thanks for the chat anyway.