I agree. There an indefinite number of contextual nuances and cultural/political particularities that do not let themselves be captured by this type of analysis. Or at least it is only possible up to a certain point

this is interesting. it also connects with the concept of mimetic desire. do we feel full because the Other who posted also feels full?

I don't think that TikTok will survive in the Western world, they should accept the situation they are in. Too many governments and military are already blocking the use. Its just a matter of time until it applies to civilians

I'm sorry but Freudian's universalist approach is as bullsh*t as a genetic explanation for hoarding. I agree that to make the universal claim that all hoarding is a reaction to a loss is wrong if we are talking about specific losses. But I think you are taking the concept of loss too narrowly. The idea that hoarding is a compensation for a loss is in the more general sense, as if collecting things would be a way to fill in a lack, to fill a void, that otherwise it would be too much to be dealt with. that can be a physical loss (like someone having their home taken away from them) or a more symbolic/abstract loss (someone having abusive parents that buy their children's love with toys). Every case has its own particularities, but the idea of loss in psychoanalysis is not just a mere loss of an object, but also the feeling of absence of something that was never there.

I think that there is one side of the question missing: what ties people together in the process of decision? were they elected, are they being payed or are they giving their life to a cause? in all these different scenarios the decision process will be different regarding the importance and the role of consensus. I think that the contextual elements that impact on the very meaning of the concept "consensus" in each of these cases are not taken into account. There are specific practical needs that impose themselves over the general features.

people tend to forget that the very process of knowing is as important as the thing known. no one can be a know it all aiming for a collection of "the most important things to know". You are a know it all by being curious, attentive, willing to study and learn. It's the form, the process, the way of living. The separation between form and content has reached an all time high

You have to start with an attempt to define knowledge. It is rooted in observation and experience, and has the ability to invalidate itself in the face of new observations and experiences. In that sense, it is transient and ephemeral in the temporal domain. You can try to derive laws and models which have practical utility here and now, but those laws will always erode with the passing of time.

yes of course, I agree. but you don't need to define knowledge for that. all you have to do is see the cases where knowledge is attributed to subjects and what are the requisites for that in each context. if we are talking about scientific knowledge, yes I agree with your definition. but there are other types of knowledge. And my point was that to be a "know it all" it has more to do with one's approach to things, to a constant epistemic approach, than having an actual list of things one knows. A "know it all" is not an expert, but someone who looks for what is to be known in every situation of life

This. Logical reasoning is not that hard. Understanding the context is much more difficult,. Acquiring information is comparatively incredibly hard.

A lot of companies, big and small, have been following this strategy. It makes a lot of sense to me. Companies should never blindly jump into the bandwagon of every novelty

the article could explore a bit more the importance of voice for subjectivity and identity. I would say that with the emergence of the 'idol' culture, the voice also took center stage. the voice is one of the fundamental elements of the structure of subjectivity, it is what marks the individual character. Of course one can admire a player playing an instrument, but then we are admiring their skill and not them. I see material for a more serious investigation in the interconnection between idolatry of musicians and the role of voice in subjectivity. It's a shame they didn't pick it up

the more the web is controlled by the big tech, the more it will become a feudal space

I think that this question is also an existential one: how do we want to live our lives? besides the scientific/philosophical discussion about memory and writing, which is fascinating by itself, the question for me is what kind of human beings do we want to be? do we want to let AI's write down everything for us or do we want to leave a mark, leave OUR mark in the world and actually do the things ourselves? also, if we think of every activity as a chore, then we are only looking at its results. but there is also the satisfaction of doing the activity. this view of AI's as a replacement for everything is just the climax of the fantasy of the modern hedonist society addicted to instant gratification.

This reminded me of a recent post of mine:

Control is an illusion.

But that also means that illusions can be used to gain at least some (sense of] control. See that mismatched bracket? I did that, despite the Universe screaming with a thousand voices that I shouldn't.

This text was written by a humane life form. #NoAI