All except the "Hexbear is a community of" prompt on the screenshot is AI generated. I am scared of this technology.

  • Yanqui_UXO [any]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    (some of this is philosophically sound/interesting, i've actually had very very good results plugging in bits of philosophy):

    The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness. Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an unification of deception and false consciousness.

    The spectacle obliterates the boundaries between self and world by flooding the world with images of a self which is its own object. It also obliterates the boundary between seeing and being seen.

    The spectacle’s pseudo-concentration on the object is actually a generalized dispersion of the focus of consciousness.

    The spectacle is the opposite of dialogue. It is the image of the world’s monologue. It is the monologue of the self which takes itself as its own object: the spectacle is the dream of a self which is both perceiving and perceived, speaking and spoken to, at once effect and cause, both object and subject.

    Only by creating the spectacle could the bourgeoisie become an exploiting class. The first historical act of the bourgeoisie was thus the establishment of the spectacle.

    The spectacle brings together the people and the army, but in such a way that the army protects the people from the people themselves, and the people from the army.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      The spectacle is the opposite of dialogue. It is the image of the world’s monologue. It is the monologue of the self which takes itself as its own object: the spectacle is the dream of a self which is both perceiving and perceived, speaking and spoken to, at once effect and cause, both object and subject.

      This is a totally original wording from the AI and is a legitimately good explanation of the spectacle.

      It also shows the conflict between spectacular society and dialectical society. A spectacular society is a monologue, it's inherently authoritarian and lacks any dialecical solution to crises. Which is why the US is such a braindead society. There's an inability of spectacular citizens to think dialectically.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      The full thesis is

      The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness. Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of generalized separation.

      So it's definitely digested marxists.org because that's spot on for the first few words.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      The spectacle obliterates the boundaries between self and world by flooding the world with images of a self which is its own object. It also obliterates the boundary between seeing and being seen.

      The actual next passage in the book is

      The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.

      So it's actually rewording the original work. Interesting...

      It's also following Debord's style of starting a lot of the theses with "the spectacle is..."

      • Yanqui_UXO [any]
        hexagon
        ·
        3 years ago

        I punched in Heidegger before. It was really fucking something. People will be writing their dissertations this way.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I chose Debord because if he knew we were feeding his words to what is essentially the final form of the spectacle, he'd probably get really upset.