Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites desire Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

The murdering of possibility to regulate our suffering

From The Life You Want by Adam Phillips pg 117:

If we wanted a definition of so-called pathology – or our difficulties in living – it may be, in Cioran’s phrase, the murdering of possibility. The murdering of possibility to regulate our suffering, to keep ourselves sufficiently safe. So where Freud’s and Ferenczi’s and Cioran’s question is: how, if at all, can I make my life seem not merely bearable but worth living; how can I justify, or make something I value out of the suffering my life involves?

From pg 118-119:

These questions, in all their apparent rhetorical gravity, may be there … to murder possibility; may indeed be our way of murdering possibility under the cover of pursuing profound questions.

What might we make of ourselves is a call to action, and it confronts us with, or challenges us to ask, what we want rather than what we supposedly are. It makes what we want, and what we want to be … the heart of the matter.

From pg 119:

For the pragmatists, unlike the psychoanalyst, the risk is that we avoid confronting what we want to be, what we might be, what we could be, by telling ourselves what we really are; as though we have delegated what we want to what we have been persuaded we are, or to what we are keen to take ourselves to be.