You clearly completely missed my point if you can look at the gross injustices of the world and the growing contradictions of capitalism and see the machines owned by the ruling class as at least the equal of people for their right to exist, and declare "this is equalizing!" while the people are trampled over by their rulers, "equal" as meat and/or parrots or whatever reductionist descriptions you feel privileged in using.
I hold no special metaphysical fondness for Buddhism. It's often another alienating system of maintaining the status quo and expanding the power of the ruling class, especially as applied by rulers that have adopted it historically.
I said I wanted to take a break because it's almost always :wall-talk: dealing with arguments like yours. I'm more Continental in my philosophy about what is happening and what ought to be done and less about quaint and privileged abstracts about "what is, is."
I predict this is going to go nowhere except, maybe, name calling. You did make a new account specifically to pitch your take in this thread, after all. I really don't want to get into this further right now.
"Your poetry is just parroting, just like the machine replacing you" provides no comfort and for that matter no hope and no way forward for the poet being replaced, and on those grounds I argue it can even be counter-revolutionary.
I could expand that philosophy further into telling a laid off factory worker that the robot that replaced their post on the assembly line simply did his job better and therefore he should have no grievance instead of asking that worker why the owner of the machine is the only one that significantly benefits from the machine's labor, and then suggesting what is to be done from there. If I told that worker that they are literally the equal (or by implication of efficiency, the lesser) to the machine that replaced them in the factory, and therefore should feel some sort of solidarity with that machine and be happy that their existential equal took over the job, even while owned by someone that gets all the machine's benefits, that worker would be demoralized or pissed off and I wouldn't blame them.
The "path" you suggest is a potentially ruinous one on those grounds when it comes to any future possibility of defeating capitalism before it destroys us all, "meat" or "parrots" or whatever.
deleted by creator
You clearly completely missed my point if you can look at the gross injustices of the world and the growing contradictions of capitalism and see the machines owned by the ruling class as at least the equal of people for their right to exist, and declare "this is equalizing!" while the people are trampled over by their rulers, "equal" as meat and/or parrots or whatever reductionist descriptions you feel privileged in using.
I hold no special metaphysical fondness for Buddhism. It's often another alienating system of maintaining the status quo and expanding the power of the ruling class, especially as applied by rulers that have adopted it historically.
I said I wanted to take a break because it's almost always :wall-talk: dealing with arguments like yours. I'm more Continental in my philosophy about what is happening and what ought to be done and less about quaint and privileged abstracts about "what is, is."
I predict this is going to go nowhere except, maybe, name calling. You did make a new account specifically to pitch your take in this thread, after all. I really don't want to get into this further right now.
deleted by creator
Not necessarily.
"Your poetry is just parroting, just like the machine replacing you" provides no comfort and for that matter no hope and no way forward for the poet being replaced, and on those grounds I argue it can even be counter-revolutionary.
I could expand that philosophy further into telling a laid off factory worker that the robot that replaced their post on the assembly line simply did his job better and therefore he should have no grievance instead of asking that worker why the owner of the machine is the only one that significantly benefits from the machine's labor, and then suggesting what is to be done from there. If I told that worker that they are literally the equal (or by implication of efficiency, the lesser) to the machine that replaced them in the factory, and therefore should feel some sort of solidarity with that machine and be happy that their existential equal took over the job, even while owned by someone that gets all the machine's benefits, that worker would be demoralized or pissed off and I wouldn't blame them.
The "path" you suggest is a potentially ruinous one on those grounds when it comes to any future possibility of defeating capitalism before it destroys us all, "meat" or "parrots" or whatever.
I really don't want to get into this any further.