doe @exiliaex@masto.anarch.cc

"Only someone who is enchanted can say "I" with a smile, and the only happiness that is truly deserved is the one we could never dream of deserving.

That is the ultimate reason for the precept that there is only one way to achieve happiness on this earth: to believe in the divine and not to aspire to reach it (there is an ironic variation of this in a conversation between Franz Kafka and Gustav Janouch, when Kafka affirms that there is plenty of hope - but not for us). This apparently ascetic thesis becomes intelligible only if we understand the meaning of this "not for us." It means not that happiness is reserved only for others (happiness is, precisely, for us) but that it awaits us only at the point where it was not destined for us.

That is: happiness can be only ours through magic. At that point, when we have wrenched it away from fate, happiness coincides entirely with our knowing ourselves to be capable of magic, with the gesture we use to banish that childhood sadness once and for all..."

@ch4r10t_tv tell me who it is ill duel them 1v1 they can choose the weapon

@roundtit oh that sounds really interesting, if you find it let me know, i might do a little searching myself

yknow i think i'm going to turn this into a little thread of different things i've read on names; benjamin, scholem, d&g, bataille, etc

having legal names treated by authorities as "real" names has convinced so many people that its bizarre to have more than one name throughout one's life, when the opposite is true.

names are gifts. we receive many throughout our lives. we always give ourself this gift (though many of us lie to ourselves about it). and sometimes we share that gift to ourselves with others.

a name has power given the social world that carries it. remember this every time youre given a name, every time you gift others a name, and every time you share the gift of your name with others.

@hexlatex gosh... 😍

@oxie post old stuff too!!

and with my scalability posting out of the way... good morning everyone!

"The expectation of scaling up is not limited to science. Progress itself has often been defined by its ability to make projects expand without changing their framing assumptions. This quality is “scalability.” The term is a bit confusing, because it could be interpreted to mean “able to be discussed in terms of scale.” Both scalable and nonscalable projects, however, can be discussed in relation to scale. When Fernand Braudel explained history’s “long durée” or Niels Bohr showed us the quantum atom, these were not projects of scalability, although they each revolutionized thinking about scale. Scalability, in contrast, is the ability of a project to change scales smoothly without any change in project frames. A scalable business, for example, does not change its organization as it expands. This is possible only if business relations are not transformative, changing the business as new relations are added. Similarly, a scalable research project admits only data that already fit the research frame. Scalability requires that project elements be oblivious to the indeterminacies of encounter; that’s how they allow smooth expansion.
Thus, too, scalability banishes meaningful diversity, that is, diversity that might change things." -Anna Tsing, The Mushroom at the End of the World

https://anarch.cc/anna-tsing/

@CCym cute sweater!! it looks great!

@silberfuchs i'm near seattle, if you could! thank you so much!!

@sky snooze-moder

it was incredibly surreal

i did meet a guy who made a very big introduction to me and after asking for my name went, very loudly "I'M DONALD, DONALD TRUMP, THE FILIPINO VERSION, ITS NICE TO MEET YOU"