New Social Thread

[JontRevolting]

Getting on a plane at fucking 6am tommorow morning to board a ship interstate for 3 months that carries aluminium.It should be interesting for a land lover like me and I have 12 packets of Kwells incase I get seasick.It's a pretty great job though,my company flies me in and out at the end of every swing.I've got a training period of 36 months at sea but after that it's 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off at $80,000 a year.Not only is the money great but i'll be travelling a hell of alot also,gonna miss my dog though.Beats the shit outt've working for peanuts for some retard supermarket company.

 

[Pessimism]

Getting on a plane at fucking 6am tommorow morning to board a ship interstate for 3 months that carries aluminium.It should be interesting for a land lover like me and I have 12 packets of Kwells incase I get seasick.It's a pretty great job though,my company flies me in and out at the end of every swing.I've got a training period of 36 months at sea but after that it's 6 weeks on and 6 weeks off at $80,000 a year.Not only is the money great but i'll be travelling a hell of alot also,gonna miss my dog though.Beats the shit outt've working for peanuts for some retard supermarket company.

What exactly are you doing? What is the company?

 

[JontRevolting]

I'm going on as a Trainee Integrated Rating,pretty much a glorified deckhand,we help out the engineers,paint and other stuff,I had to do a 3month course at the Australian Maritime College aswell.The companies called 'ASP Ship Management',I'd never even heard of the job until last year when a friend of my fathers recommended it.

 

[Dak]

Damn, I missed the whole commodities discussion party.

 

[Einherjar86]

I am really struggling to see how you can conclude that use value is only realized by exchange value. Maybe you're speaking from a much better understanding of these terms than I am, but the way I interpret what you're saying is that there is no commodity in existence that has value anywhere until it is exchanged. It seems perfectly obvious to me that something like food is always valuable to a person regardless of whether they produce it themselves or they produce non-food items which they in turn exchange for food.

Keep in mind as well that I'm speaking within the parameters of a capitalist system.

Objects/items/etc. are not inherently useful, because useful is an egomorphic, Human-oriented term. Say we have a hamburger sitting in front of us, on a bun, with lettuce, tomato, the whole deal. We understand that object on the basis that it is potential food/sustenance for us. It's useful to us because we need food.

This use-value is not a character trait of the object itself. It's a trait we, as humans in need of it, attribute to it. It alone (w/o humans) does not have the use-value of food.

Now, let's not get so anti-humanist. Say there are still people and the burger is in demand. People are hungry, they need food. A burger possesses no use-value for its owner who is willing to sell it; otherwise s/he would not sell it. It only possesses use-value for those who are willing to buy it. Therefore, an exchange must take place, and this exchange must take place before any use-value of the burger is realized. The buyer must put something up in exchange for the burger, something that is accepted as equal in value to the burger: money. Does money possess the use-value of a burger? No, not at all. Something that is utterly different from an item's use-value is being realized during this exchange, and Marx qualifies it as the exchange-value.

This exchange value functions as a symbol, and commodities must be dealt with as this value before they can be consumed as a use-value. When you buy a burger, you don't say: "That burger is the equivalent of my hunger's needs" (or, you might, but that won't get you anywhere). You have to say: "That burger is the equivalent of $1.99" (or whatever). You equate $1.99 with your hunger, but this is an arbitrary, merely symbolic equation. You have to recognize the product as an exchange-value before you can realize its use-value.

 

[King Richard]

I just want to point out that oil is a much larger part of everyday life than most people suspect. There are hundreds of things people use on a daily basis that are made from petroleum products that are not named gasoline or oil itself. So in reality, petroleum products (not just gasoline) imo are borderline necessities to modern human life. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I was going to respond to a few people in that argument but I'm a little too late to do it. Interesting stuff though.

 

[Astrum]

QUICK whats a household object i can use as an effective coffee pot. mine's MIA

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

What a big smart boy you are.

I was responding to V5 "google motherfucker do you speak it"

I don't see how this is different than the definition you quoted, except that I paraphrased. In perceiving objects as "for us," we understand them in terms of our own needs.

I'd appreciate it if you stop making such a vendetta out of this and instead try and have an intelligent discussion.

I just think there is a big difference between an object and a being. That's what makes the definitions different.

Sorry if I come off like I'm bickering. The last thing I want is some falling out. I value the challenge and learn a lot from reading most debates on this forum although I don't really partake in most. Forgive me, as I am an amateur.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, I thought you were derisively comparing my definition to the other one. My mistake.

Well, I'd agree that there are major differences between mere objects and "beings," or "Things." Heidegger's "Origin of the Work of Art" does a good job of trying to separate the two (if you buy his theory and can penetrate the density of his prose). But I don't think that changes the egomorphic approach that we as human beings have toward anything that exists in the imaginary, as Lacan used the term (anything in the imaginary being both living entities and objects).

We approach everything through the lens, or filter, of our ego.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm still trying to grasp the axioms "the real, the symbolic and the imaginary"

I try testing it and using it in everyday life, the real is easy, but there are times when I think some existents are the symbolic and the imaginary all in one. It's confusing.

 

[Vossyrus]

I'm was trying to rip the audio from a CD onto my computer. Neither CDex, nor EAC could recognize the disc, and drive E would not show up, despite the disc working in my discman. I bought my computer brand new in December, and the disc is Moonspell's Sin/Pecado. Then I started up Tau Analyzer to see if it could read anything off of the disc, and for whatever reason that got everything going. Must have been some sort of copy protection? Strange.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm still trying to grasp the axioms "the real, the symbolic and the imaginary"

I try testing it and using it in everyday life, the real is easy, but there are times when I think some existents are the symbolic and the imaginary all in one. It's confusing.

They're confusing terms, and they overlap frequently.

As I understand it, imaginary simply refers to the formation of images in the visual field. This is why the mirror function is so important for Lacan as fundamental in the formation of a subject's ego. The ego is constituted by its understanding of and relationship to other images.

Symbolic is a bit more complicated, but I think we can pretty definitively state that it has a lot to do with speech and language, and the play of signifiers. I still don't have a complete grasp on it.

 

[Chanakya]

I have a better standard of English than Ananth, just so you know. If I was writing an essay rather than posting on forums then it would be quite evident, I think. I don't read over what I've have typed, I just click post.

The irony

 

[Zephyrus]

Yeah I would have said 'were' instead of 'was' because I'm in a total war against the death of the subjunctive mood.

 

[Marina_K]

The irony

I've noticed you criticised that guy's English quite a lot without bothering to use actual grammar in your own posts.

You're both losers anyway. I've wasted too much time looking through old posts now.

 

[Cythraul]

Yeah I would have said 'were' instead of 'was' because I'm in a total war against the death of the subjunctive mood.

.

 

[Episteme]

This Marina_K character is rather snappy. Interesting.

 

[Chanakya]

I've noticed you criticised that guy's English quite a lot without bothering to use actual grammar in your own posts.

You're both losers anyway. I've wasted too much time looking through old posts now.

Ok.

 

[Onder]

So I had a glorious idea today.

Basically, it's a pub where low existences like homelesses and gypsies can drink alcohol for free. Wait, let me explain the logic. There is a number of those "people" who just beg for money to eventually get a beer anyway, instead of food. They also beg for cigs etc. This place would be slightly below street level and there would be, yes, alcohol for free. There would be tables and chairs, yes, everything, even a bar. The prize they pay for drinking for free is that above - there are rooms and cabins w/ a view, from where people laugh at them. There is also a possibility of throwing stuff at them or even spitting on them (but be aware of not becoming one of them. The prizes in the pub above are higher than usual to overcome lower class attending this show).

On some evenings there would be a further program of ridiculing those people. Even a moderator who walks around and asks them questions until they are ridiculed to a point of suicide, just to have sip of ugly beer for free (often w/ piss in it).

Alcohol gives homelesses courage, so often they would just have enough of it and they would riot inside like animals against the higher class. This would make the show even more enjoyable because they can never win. You, as a spectator, can throw them ciggaretes as a gift or even give them some food as a gratitude. Some homelesses love alcohol so much that they would drink themselves to death if you gave them enough, so that would be also a great fun. Some of them would just die there for your amusement.

It's all fair though, everybody can enter the arena whenever they want and leave it anytime aswell. Trust me, this would work.

 

[Cythraul]

you are a fucking genius