Crazy japanese man!
I think he's IEX, maybe ILE, but not ILI.
What do you think?
Damo Suzuki
Crazy japanese man!
I think he's IEX, maybe ILE, but not ILI.
What do you think?
Damo! I love Can.
CAN is great!Originally Posted by soulless ginger mutant
IEICrazy japanese man!
I think he's IEX, maybe ILE, but not ILI.
What do you think?
I love this band so much
Can <3 omg I didn't even know the people behind them.... he looks so jolly, what a happy old guy : )
Ne
I really want to know jaki liebezeit's type now
I'm leaning to Ne as well. Probably can't be J as a communist-anarchist-nihilist
Also, love you guys for loving CAN, they're beyond transcendent
What does the @Sol say?
was listening to this just yesterday
mb IEI
communist is collectivist so opposite to anarchist and nihilist. as collectivism means higher value of common good above personal interests and wishes
Thank you for the input.
I think the joke is in the paradox - but, as a note, anarchism and nihilism might also see themselves as common good: as all truths expressed to the world are seen. Why communicate if there is no ''common good'' involved in some way? All are ordered systems.
dunno if communism is related to type or quadra. ILI can be communists too. I think the majority of INXX types are leftists, though.
It would be a mistake.
Anarchism assumes the absence of centralised control. While for the common good is best the optimization on higher or common levels, but not of lesser groups. Anarchism is more individualism, the opposite to collectivism.
While nihilism rejects the will to good, so efforts for socium's good what is collectivism also.
> Why communicate if there is no ''common good'' involved in some way?
Individualists are crazy as can't live as individualists on practice. They can only be in illusions that they do not depend from others, what helps them to be worse with others.
@para, anarchism is commonly misunderstood. Anarchists aren’t for chaos and murder in the streets. They simply oppose coercion, and so naturally the state and capitalism. They’re the first in line to support forging community ties and freedom from poverty, exploitation, and coercion for all.
what people don't get is that anarchy is an utopia based on fair relationships among all. everyone realized that it's impossible to get there by the current state of things, it's good to wish for the best though.
I have Ege Bamyasi on vinyl. I don't agree with vinly purists that all music sounds better on LP, but this one really crushes any digital/CD version like a can of okra.
I own this:
https://www.discogs.com/Can-Can/release/5145373
I might try to type the whole band in the next few weeks when I get the time. two other great Ni dominant german bands are Neu! and La Düsseldorf.
My point is - for anarchists the common good would be the absence of centralised government, the focus on individuals. That is what is ''best'' for people, hence the formulation of the concept and the spread of the ideology. Nihilism does maybe not have any ''common good'' idea, beyond the good of communicating their truth, of course. Why would a nihilist bother saying anything if he did not believe that informing people of the truth IS a common good? Communism only formalises and externalises the common good in the system, but nihilists and anarchists believe just as much in a common good as any other ideological position. That is the very nature of communication.
Neu! is great. I started listening to them after reading about how they incluenced Bowie's Berlin period.I own this:
https://www.discogs.com/Can-Can/release/5145373
I might try to type the whole band in the next few weeks when I get the time. two other great Ni dominant german bands are Neu! and La Düsseldorf.
Anarchists which are not also individualists think so much irrationally, having the lack of logics and mathematics education. Except _secondary_ problems as hard cases of corruption (what is not obligate to exist), problems with information exchange (what also can be fixed) etc., the best possibilities for maximum total outcome are when the control is centralized, as in other situation subgroups will be acting in own interests only and this mostly means lesser total outcome and more expenses on conflicts between groups.
Imagine any group which has the aim to do something together (to build a home, for example), but where anyone acts only in own interests and for own wishes (anyone stops to work in any moment, does the work how he likes without following to general plan of construction, etc). It will lead to serious problems of cooperation as people need to sacrifice personal interests for common aim - need centralised control above them as persons. While anarchists mentioned by you reject this evidence.
I understand there can strange thoughts at people, people may be controversive and even do not notice this. People may mistake.
I wanted to explain that communism (collectivism) and anarchism (chaos) are not compatible.
Last edited by Sol; 08-02-2019 at 06:56 PM.
many of the socialist/communist politicians who had leading roles through the 1900's were anarcho idealists, so not true. anarchism is like the ultimate dream-land, but the socio-economical means to achieve it vary very much
@Sol
I agree that they are not compatible as far as we are looking in political opposition - but i disagree that the common good can only be attributed to communism.
To use your example of a house only being built by the collective (which is a valid image to use), why not turn it on its head? Something that demands people to work in solitude or isolation, an aim that only has the individual in it. To create a personal work of art? Here the constant dependence on the commune can interfere, as there is no place for individual inner space. This, an anarchist would say, is the right of people, and to strive for this ideal is to strive for the common good.
So yes, the two ideologies are not compatible politically, but to call one the common good and the other the good of the individual is illogical in nature, as even the most individualist ideologies fight for the common good, which is the freedom to be individualistic. The common good is, as i said before, only seen most concretely in communism, it isn't ONLY present there.
So, again, a matter of what thinks is the common good. But one thing is sure: as soon as something is ideological, it must reach for some sort of common good (as thought by the inventors of a specific ideology), because to formalize concepts and wishing to spread truth IS the wish for common good (in a very abstract and general sense).
But yes, i understand what you're saying, and i agree with the political notion, but not that only communism searches for common good. That is too ''clunky'' an interpretation for my tastes.
@ooo
I don't know much about the specifics - how would anarcho-ideology and communistic ideology fit together theoretically? Sounds like an interesting synthesis.
@para they don't fit but one has to start somewhere, the idea behind anarchism is very similar to what socialism (in theory) portrayed, the first Russian and Italian politicians of the early 900 were anarchists btw, who opted for socialism. check Filippo Turati, the dad of Italian socialism
Oh, ok. Yeah, i think i have a sort of intuitive grasp of that common beginning - that intertwinement was also borne of the hippie movement, it seems. (which is sort of my point of reference for this idea)
I was somewhat thinking of the developed ideologies as having some sort of synthetic product, but yeah, i understand what you mean.
@soundofconfusion
Holger Czukay - maybe LSI? I have no idea about Jaki, lol.
hmm seems unlikely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_nmAASVE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfVgvKf190o
lol, touché...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
