home.social

#dread — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #dread, aggregated by home.social.

  1. EDITOR’S NOTE: COMMUNITY AND CONNECTION AMID TIMES OF DREAD

    In April, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of The Walldog, a new local online outlet. This is a critical arts project, one that focuses on the creation of cultural memory and imagination for the future. 

    “The Walldog reads public art, ghost signs, murals, textiles, protest aesthetics, and vernacular design as openings into potential histories and yet-to-be-imagined futures, […]

    communityedition.ca/editors-no
  2. 🎬🤦‍♂️ Ah, the thrill of watching a #blockbuster hit... all alone in a cavernous #AMC #theater. Thanks to this *groundbreaking* site, you too can revel in the #existential #dread of #solitude at the #movies. But hey, at least you won't have to fight anyone for the #armrest. 🍿👻
    walzr.com/empty-screenings #HackerNews #ngated

  3. 🎬🤦‍♂️ Ah, the thrill of watching a #blockbuster hit... all alone in a cavernous #AMC #theater. Thanks to this *groundbreaking* site, you too can revel in the #existential #dread of #solitude at the #movies. But hey, at least you won't have to fight anyone for the #armrest. 🍿👻
    walzr.com/empty-screenings #HackerNews #ngated

  4. 🎬🤦‍♂️ Ah, the thrill of watching a #blockbuster hit... all alone in a cavernous #AMC #theater. Thanks to this *groundbreaking* site, you too can revel in the #existential #dread of #solitude at the #movies. But hey, at least you won't have to fight anyone for the #armrest. 🍿👻
    walzr.com/empty-screenings #HackerNews #ngated

  5. 🎬🤦‍♂️ Ah, the thrill of watching a #blockbuster hit... all alone in a cavernous #AMC #theater. Thanks to this *groundbreaking* site, you too can revel in the #existential #dread of #solitude at the #movies. But hey, at least you won't have to fight anyone for the #armrest. 🍿👻
    walzr.com/empty-screenings #HackerNews #ngated

  6. 🎬🤦‍♂️ Ah, the thrill of watching a #blockbuster hit... all alone in a cavernous #AMC #theater. Thanks to this *groundbreaking* site, you too can revel in the #existential #dread of #solitude at the #movies. But hey, at least you won't have to fight anyone for the #armrest. 🍿👻
    walzr.com/empty-screenings #HackerNews #ngated

  7. 🤖 Oh no, #AI companies want us to be *afraid* of their mysterious #techno sorcery! Because nothing boosts business like a healthy dose of fear-mongering and existential #dread, right? 🙄 Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation insists on listing every single country and region in existence—who knew #geography was their true passion? 🌍🔍
    bbc.com/future/article/2026042 #Fearmongering #Sorcery #BBC #HackerNews #ngated

  8. 🤖 Oh no, #AI companies want us to be *afraid* of their mysterious #techno sorcery! Because nothing boosts business like a healthy dose of fear-mongering and existential #dread, right? 🙄 Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation insists on listing every single country and region in existence—who knew #geography was their true passion? 🌍🔍
    bbc.com/future/article/2026042 #Fearmongering #Sorcery #BBC #HackerNews #ngated

  9. 🤖 Oh no, #AI companies want us to be *afraid* of their mysterious #techno sorcery! Because nothing boosts business like a healthy dose of fear-mongering and existential #dread, right? 🙄 Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation insists on listing every single country and region in existence—who knew #geography was their true passion? 🌍🔍
    bbc.com/future/article/2026042 #Fearmongering #Sorcery #BBC #HackerNews #ngated

  10. 🤖 Oh no, #AI companies want us to be *afraid* of their mysterious #techno sorcery! Because nothing boosts business like a healthy dose of fear-mongering and existential #dread, right? 🙄 Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation insists on listing every single country and region in existence—who knew #geography was their true passion? 🌍🔍
    bbc.com/future/article/2026042 #Fearmongering #Sorcery #BBC #HackerNews #ngated

  11. 🤖 Oh no, #AI companies want us to be *afraid* of their mysterious #techno sorcery! Because nothing boosts business like a healthy dose of fear-mongering and existential #dread, right? 🙄 Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation insists on listing every single country and region in existence—who knew #geography was their true passion? 🌍🔍
    bbc.com/future/article/2026042 #Fearmongering #Sorcery #BBC #HackerNews #ngated

  12. The Water Spirit, Theodor Kittelsen

    woke up with a sinus headache this morning, this caught my eye. I love the twisted hair, this isn't one of those angelic nymphs. Something about a these headaches feels like this, like it sinks its filthy dead teeth into your neck and drags you into the muck. 🤣 I think this gets it right as an artwork. The branches or twigs sort of echo the hair, and the calm mirror of the water maybe sets a mood for the appearance of the creature, which doesn't look specifically evil or angry. Just looking at us.

    #art #creepy #spirits #water #dread #spook #eyes #forest

  13. Как мы профукали базу клиента и научились безопасности

    Больше восьми лет я работал backend‑разработчиком. Мы создавали веб‑приложения для автоматизации логистики и закупок. Команда росла, процессы крепли. Всё было правильно и красиво: CI/CD, код‑ревью, споры о чистоте архитектуры и идеальном нейминге. Мир был прост, предсказуем и казалось, что так будет всегда. Но однажды утром всё изменилось. Что же случилось?

    habr.com/ru/articles/959542/

    #semgrep #dfd #DREAD #stride #безопасная_разработка

  14. A quotation from La Rochefoucauld

    Our repentance is not so much regret for the evil we have done, as fear of its consequences to us.
     
    [Notre repentir n’est pas tant un regret du mal que nous avons fait, qu’une crainte de celui qui nous en peut arriver.]

    François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) French epigrammatist, memoirist, noble
    Réflexions ou sentences et maximes morales [Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims], ¶180 (1665-1678) [ed. Gowens (1851), ¶187]

    Sourcing, notes, other translations: wist.info/la-rochefoucauld-fra…

    #quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #larochefoucauld #consequences #dread #fear #punishment #regret #remorse #sin #repentance #retribution #selfinterest

  15. Ah, yes, because what the world *really* needs is yet another #app to teach you how to communicate with fewer words than a toddler. 🙄📱 Embrace the art of expressing your #existential #dread with a vocabulary of 120 words or less—because who needs nuance when you can just grunt in #Toki #Pona and call it "simplicity"? 🤦‍♂️
    sekor.eu.org/lipusona/ #communication #simplicity #minimalism #HackerNews #ngated

  16. He Never Left – DREAD Debuts Trailer for New Horror Release Coming To Select Theaters 11/1 and VOD 11/5

    #horror#PressRelease#horrormovies#trailers#HeNeverLeft – @DreadPresents – @epic_pictures – A Fugitive and His Girlfriend Become Targets of a Legendary Local Killer in DREAD’s Newest Release From The Press Release: LOS ANGELES (October 7, 2024) – Epic Pictures’ specialt…

    #ad #Dread #HeNeverLeft #horror #PressRelease

    horrornerdonline.com/2024/10/h

  17. DREAD Releases Teaser for Upcoming Horror Release He Never Left Coming This November

    #horror#PressRelease#horrormovies#trailers#HeNeverLeft – @DreadPresents – From The Press Release: After hearing strange noises coming from an adjoining motel room, a federal fugitive and his girlfriend become targets of the notorious “Pale Face” killer, whose legend has haunted the local commu…

    #ad #Dread #HeNeverLeft #horror #PressRelease

    horrornerdonline.com/2024/09/d

  18. The Shadowed Citadel Dread Within

    In the midst of the demonic castle, lurking beneath the fiery glow of torches, cryptic symbols placate creatures with awe-inspiringly malevolent intentions

    See More Seeds: aidyslexic.raupulus.dev/collec

    #StableDiffusion #ai #ArtificialIntelligence #shadowed-citadel #dread #demonic-castle #cryptic-symbols #malevolent

  19. The Shadowed Citadel Dread Within

    In the midst of the demonic castle, lurking beneath the fiery glow of torches, cryptic symbols placate creatures with awe-inspiringly malevolent intentions

    See More Seeds: aidyslexic.raupulus.dev/collec

    #StableDiffusion #ai #ArtificialIntelligence #shadowed-citadel #dread #demonic-castle #cryptic-symbols #malevolent

  20. The Shadowed Citadel Dread Within

    In the midst of the demonic castle, lurking beneath the fiery glow of torches, cryptic symbols placate creatures with awe-inspiringly malevolent intentions

    See More Seeds: aidyslexic.raupulus.dev/collec

    #StableDiffusion #ai #ArtificialIntelligence #shadowed-citadel #dread #demonic-castle #cryptic-symbols #malevolent

  21. The Shadowed Citadel Dread Within

    In the midst of the demonic castle, lurking beneath the fiery glow of torches, cryptic symbols placate creatures with awe-inspiringly malevolent intentions

    See More Seeds: aidyslexic.raupulus.dev/collec

    #StableDiffusion #ai #ArtificialIntelligence #shadowed-citadel #dread #demonic-castle #cryptic-symbols #malevolent

  22. The Shadowed Citadel Dread Within

    In the midst of the demonic castle, lurking beneath the fiery glow of torches, cryptic symbols placate creatures with awe-inspiringly malevolent intentions

    See More Seeds: aidyslexic.raupulus.dev/collec

    #StableDiffusion #ai #ArtificialIntelligence #shadowed-citadel #dread #demonic-castle #cryptic-symbols #malevolent

  23. The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).

    Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.

    When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).

    * [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)

  24. The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in flux, in perpetual progress or process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, over·human, über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).

    Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.

    When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).

    * [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)

  25. The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).

    Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.

    When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).

    * [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)

  26. The aporia or obstacle to Louise Banks’ eventual learning-to-use such 4-dimensional logic is-&-was, in the film, her own worded world—and especially (in her own worded world) her sense of herself as a particular and particularized/particularizeable ‘ᴘᴇʀꜱᴏɴ’ (rather than, instead, something or someone in #flux, in perpetual #progress or #process … that-is-to-say as an ongoing ‘#individuation’ rather than straightforward ‘#individual’). … Once her sense of straightforward self is discerned as something ‘porous’, the aporia disappears—or is at least overcome (…she becomes, as such, #over·human, #über·menschlich as Friedrich Nietzsche would have said, and she “opens up her theatre-eye—the great ‘third eye’ that looks out into the world through the other two”). This entails a kind of passivity, I suppose, since it necessitates a sort of letting-go (or what Meister Eckart, prior to Nietzsche, called Gelassenheit and Abgeschiedenheit: the ‘letting-go’ that is itself a ‘letting-be’ allowing something like the fullness—maybe the excess—of ‘be’ing its place, its play, in time).

    Since in this 3-dimensional world I am currently out-of-time (having reached the maximum time-allotment for the ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ part of this Babson-College session), perhaps I’ll close with reference to another film—one that wasn’t included in your readings-or-screenings (which you can view at your leisure or pleasure later on, if you feel so inclined or enlooped) followed by one last nod (one final reference) to the Illegibility readings [[love that phrase]], acknowledging-of-course (with respect to the reference to yet-another film) that I’ve made reference to a number of films that weren’t on the reading-or-screening list: films like #Dune and like #Tenet, in addition to the reading/screening-list’s #Arrival. … The other film to which I want to refer is that of Guy Ritchie’s #Revolver, which also deals with a situation wherein its protagonist (a con-man by the name of Jake Green rather than a linguist by the name of L Banks) has to overcome particular/particularized ‘personhood’, individual/indivisible ‘identity’, in order to escape the confines of his own ‘con’. In #Revolver (a film released in 2005), just as in #Arrival (released in 2016), ‘fixed’ rather than ‘fluid’ notions of ‘the self’ (—understanding ‘selfhood’ as something altogether ‘individuated’-in-the-present rather than always in-the-process-of-‘individuatɪɴɢ’—) keeps everything ‘fixed’-in (and ‘fixated’-with) the ‘ɴᴏᴡ’, inextricably ‘pinned’ or ‘bound’ to what we now think that we know, closing-off the outside, the unknown, or what I jokingly called the monstrous ‘Not-Yeti’ in my uploaded #Future_Philosophy videos. … Overcoming the self, both in the overman/overhumanism of philosophers like Nietzsche and (at least in the case of #Revolver) director/cinematographers like Guy Ritchie, opens in its negation a kind of Keatsian ‘ɴᴇɢᴀᴛɪᴠᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ’ or Meister-Eckhart-like ‘Gelassenheit’, allowing in this weird undoing—this abnormal abnegation/‘Abgeschiedenheit’—a glimpse at the surreal theatre-qua-theory of futurity ‘in formation’ (quoting William Allen, “the form-without-form of negativity’s exteriority in all its evasion-of-relation”). … The future ‘in formation’, the future in its becoming, is basically—from our 3-dimensional perspective—what the future ‘ɪꜱ’: it is #larval, both in the sense of still-#unformed (still-in-#formation), and in the more strict etymological sense of #shrouded, #clouded, covered-over or #masked.

    When the philosopher René Descartes wrote (just prior to publishing his 1626 #Rules_for_the_Direction_of_Mind and 1636 #Discourse_on_Method) that he was entering onto-or-upon the great stage or theatre of World Philosophy as all actors do: that is, #masked—(his words were “larvatus prodeo”: “I advance #masked”)—he was acknowledging that his public #persona, his public #identity, was a #cover (a cover-story) underneath/behind/beyond which, in truth, lies ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ. Descartes admitted that such a mask, such a masking, allows him to cover-over his shame—again, as ᴀʟʟ ‘actors’-or-‘performers’ do. In his book #Illegibility, William Allen touches upon this when he writes about what he calls “ontological shame” and explains (on page 3 of our readings) that “shame would then be the corollary of futurity.” When we speak of, or theorize, futurity—at least from our limited 3D perspective—there is (or there should be) a feeling of shame, a feeling that something is being lost or glossed-over, abandoned—perhaps because every formulation of the future denies the future its status as not-yet-formed/Not-Yeti, as if we are tired of waiting for (or ‘awaiting’) the future, and abandon the wait (the waiting) altogether. Perhaps theorists-of-futurity should be more like Didi and Gogo in Beckett’s #Waiting_for_Godot (here referring to the most well-known work of the novelist/playwright Samuel Beckett), who, even when they think of doing it (or resolve to do it) never actually stop waiting. The Irish writer Samuel Beckett and the French writer Maurice Blanchot have—or rather, had—much in common, including a fine (refined) sense of #waiting, and, in waiting, of #boredom (which the philosopher Heidegger called “the ground-mood of Being”): boredom to the point of #dread (or if you prefer, as Heidegger himself may well have, of ‘#existential dread’—for isn’t that what life’s all about?, what life really ‘is’?: a #waiting?, an #awaiting?). More to the point: isn’t this what ‘the future’—futurity—is all about? As William Allen puts it in the quotation from Blanchot’s #Awaiting_Oblivion on page 7 of our readings, “the source of all waiting [is] the future.” … This does sound very much like a 4D statement (“the source of all waiting [is] the future”), and one that throws the question of waiting into a whole new light (again from page 7 of our readings): “It is thus not a question of waiting for the event to happen … but rather of waiting as a mode of experience of that which does not take place” but nevertheless allows everything to take place (and take time). … There—thanks for allowing this little talk to take place (and take time).

    * [[ᴇɴᴅ ᴏꜰ ᴍᴏɴᴏʟᴏɢᴜᴇ / ʙᴇɢɪɴɴɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜʀ-ʟᴏɴɢ ᴄʟᴀꜱꜱ ᴅɪꜱᴄᴜꜱꜱɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜɴᴘᴀᴄᴋɪɴɢ]] * :-)