(bez virsraksta)

« previous entry | next entry »
Jul. 18., 2025 | 05:39 pm

2 - My Intercourse

Link | ir doma | Add to Memories


Comments {10}

(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:44 pm
Link

divi ir tavs interkurss?

Atbildēt | Diskusija


f3

(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]f3
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:47 pm
Link

The word society [Gesellschaft] has its origin in the word hall [Saal]. If one hall encloses many persons, then the hall causes these persons to be in society. They are in society, and at most constitute a drawing-room society by talking in the traditional forms of drawing-room speech. When it comes to real intercourse, this is to be regarded as independent of society: it may occur or be lacking, without altering the nature of what is named society. Those who are in the hall are a society even as mute persons, or when they put each other off solely with empty phrases of courtesy. Intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the commercium, of individuals; society is only community of the hall, and even the statues of a museum-hall are in society, they are “grouped.” People are accustomed to say “they occupy [haben inne] this hall in common,” but the case is rather that the hall has us within [hat uns inne] or in it. So far the natural signification of the word society. In this it comes out that society is not generated by me and you, but by a third factor which makes associates out of us two, and that it is just this third factor that is the creative one, that which creates society.

Just so a prison society or prison companionship [Genossenschaft] (those who enjoy [geniessen] the same prison). Here we already hit upon a third factor fuller of significance than was that merely local one, the hall. Prison no longer means a space only, but a space with express reference to its inhabitants: for it is a prison only through being destined for prisoners, without whom it would be a mere building. What gives a common stamp to those who are gathered in it? Evidently the prison, since it is only by means of the prison that they are prisoners. What, then, determines the manner of life of the prison society? The prison! What determines their intercourse? The prison too, perhaps? Certainly they can enter upon intercourse only as prisoners, only so far as the prison laws allow it; but that they themselves hold intercourse, I with you, this the prison cannot bring to pass; on the contrary, it must have an eye to guarding against such egoistic, purely personal intercourse (and only as such is it really intercourse between me and you). That we jointly execute a job, run a machine, effectuate anything in general – for this a prison will indeed provide; but that I forget that I am a prisoner, and engage in intercourse with you who likewise disregard it, brings danger to the prison, and not only cannot be caused by it, but must not even be permitted. For this reason the saintly and moral-minded French chamber decides to introduce solitary confinement, and other saints will do the like in order to cut off “demoralizing intercourse.” Imprisonment is the established and – sacred condition, to injure which no attempt must be made. The slightest push of that kind is punishable, as is every uprising against a sacred thing by which man is to be charmed [befangen] and chained [gefangen].

Like the hall, the prison [Gefängnis] does form a society, a companionship, a communion (as in a communion of labour), but no intercourse, no reciprocity, no union. On the contrary, every union in the prison bears within it the dangerous seed of a “plot,” which under favourable circumstances might spring up and bear fruit.

Yet one does not usually enter the prison voluntarily, and seldom remains in it voluntarily either, but cherishes the egoistic desire for liberty. Here, therefore, it sooner becomes manifest that personal intercourse is in hostile relations to the prison society and tends to the dissolution of this very society, this joint incarceration.

Let us therefore look about for such communions as, it seems, we remain in gladly and voluntarily, without wanting to endanger them by our egoistic impulses.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:47 pm
Link

ChatGPT, tu?

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:48 pm
Link

nē, tas nav bots, tas ir kaut kāds Deridā vai cits bots

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:50 pm
Link

vācietis kkāds

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 05:51 pm
Link

nelasīšu to, tas nav Nīče

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


f3

(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]f3
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 06:09 pm
Link

Therefore the man shows a second self-discovery. The youth found himself as spirit and lost himself again in the general spirit, the complete, holy spirit, Man, mankind – in short, all ideals; the man finds himself as embodied spirit.

Boys had only unintellectual interests (those interests devoid of thoughts and ideas), youths only intellectual ones; the man has bodily, personal, egoistic interests.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: anonymous
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 07:01 pm
Link

Tad tas tomēr Jungs.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: anonymous
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 07:11 pm
Link

Aiziešu mājās, paprasīšu chatgpt kas tas ira, bet 💯 Jungs

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


(bez virsraksta)

from: [info]eishens
date: Jul. 18., 2025 - 08:06 pm
Link

Paldies, Ingmār! Palasīšu ChatGPT apkokpojumu, par to ko ir Štiernam ko teikt

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais