/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 54461
8 kB, 226 × 223
How does one become apolitical and doggedly maintain this position? Seems like you always have to be political about anything nowadays.
No. 54462
Whenever something political comes up in conversation just subtly shake your hade and leave unnoticed. Worked for me with a record of 10+ years being apolitical IRL.
No. 54463
My approach is to analyze the situation but make no claims and conclusions.
I enjoy discussion for discussion's sake and sometimes play devil's advocate. I don't actually care about the topics I argue about because I have as much control over them as I do the weather.
No. 54465
305 kB, 601 × 443
Being apolitical isn't something you should aim for. Interest in politics is good and important.
Just don't let everyone and his grandmother know about your political opinions.

Also remember this: For most people you meet in reality, talking about politics is like talking about the weather. Would you like to get really invested into a conversation about the weather?

"Hey, nice and sunny today, isn't it?"

"Well, actually i really prefer when it's -20°C with a humidity of 5% and 150km/h wind. Wouldn't hurt when it starts to rain frogs."
No. 54467
30 kB, 960 × 638
319 kB, 1065 × 1503
265 kB, 340 × 453
91 kB, 640 × 795
I generally just stuck to vidya and ignored it even as it slowly crept into shitting up and completely destroying our vidya threads on KC too. I've resented them ever since for all that and killing our home even if our home was shit. It's harder lately as I've gotten progressively more butthurt and politically aware over the last two years, and once 2020 hit I'd had it. Largely I just ignore it though. I especially ignore it IRL and like >>54465 said I usually try to treat it as small talk, not a serious discussion. Like,
>do ya know your mask says made in China?
>you mean, do I know the masks we've all had to wear for the past year was made in China? Why yes, I am aware of that.

That's pretty much how you should do it. Just casually agree with something or make some quip that's not going to make people around you butthurt and move on. I generally avoid these discussions because nothing can be gained from them, IRL or off, and all it generally does is lead to butthurt and problems IRL usually also from the sort of people who know absolutely fuckall about anything being the loudest and most aggressive about it. As such, I have no point to speaking with them.

The biggest key here OP is to remember not to treat real life like an imageboard. It can sometimes be fun to say something controversial just for the sake of being contrarian, which gets old real fast when you do it enough, and which only leads to all your townspeople and store clerks hating you. Especially in the contemporary climate there's little you can do or say which won't make people butthurt. It's very easy for me to experience butthurt from any side. This is true of most people. Nobody agrees on everything and everyone got hyper retarded but thank Jesus it all died down a little.

I feel like nobody really cares anymore except a random white boomer mom or some beer gut boomer like in pic related screeching about antifa and muh sassy black wymyn screeching about some BLM stuff but generally speaking I think everyone is real fuckin tired of this shit. The screechiest people are beyond help and pointless to say anything to unless you know them super well like a direct family member or closest friend. The people more worth talking to generally don't say anything at all and it's hard to tell them apart from the sort of people that literally cannot name the president or Senate minority leader or anyone in the Senate or Congress or SCOTUS. Yes, these people do exist. They are not even that much dumber and more uninformed than the screechers. As such,

tl;dr just ignore them and talk on and on about your autistic hobbies instead
No. 54471 Kontra
>maintain a position

Sounds paradoxical to me in a way. I think being apolitical will in itself incite "political" forces upon you. To not care at all about what is going on and will be going on is a position that can be treated as political statement, or at least can be "read" political.
No. 54473
93 kB, 614 × 980
>How does one become apolitical and doggedly maintain this position?
Avoid party politics, and only address single issues as they arise. When doing so, drill problems down to their possible causes. Remember, possible causes, this keeps conversation theoretical. It also shifts conversation away from the ready-made solutions political parties offer, and allows you to seemlessly turn the discussion into dispassionate analysis.

Also, listen when people speak, and look for a tangent. A conversation that starts with George Floyd can be shifted to another topic. Floyd was suspected of passing counterfeit money? Did you know that George Clinton used counterfeit money to fund a Parliaments album? Aaaaaand we're off the subject altogether.
No. 54474
211 kB, 962 × 729
Personally, I think people nowadays misinterpret being emotionally involved into something as being political about it. Being emotional all the time drains you out and makes you go either bonkers or cynical.

Politics is merely a bunch of tools to manage a larger group of people, can be a state, a company or just your family. Naturally, as we're all also part of some group that is being managed by other people than us, we show interest in it and have an opinion on how to handle x and y. We may have different opinions on it, that's why we exchange ideas. We can constructively develop better strategies for present and future and evaluate past strategies (welcome to ideal-democracy) or we can use bigger-stick diplomacy (violence, propaganda etc) to enforce ideological viewpoints as being truth (welcome to all other political systems).

Being apolitical just makes you vulnerable to both approaches so why let that happen. Just don't get involved into it emotionally too much and enjoy arts, nature, sports, imageboards and whatever makes you happy just as much and live a fulfilled life.
No. 54475
That's just in the US I suppose, because over here nobody ever mentions politics or talks about it in general
The extent of it that you'd hear is when there's some heated situations like with the ukraine right now or back during the crimea case. Somebody would briefly mention "hey did you hear about the situation with ukraine?" and they'll get the response like "yeah, kinda scary" and that would be it. Happens about once-twice a decade
As such, most russians don't have a political opinion and in most cases also have no idea about politics in general. When russians visit the english speaking internet and especially the american websites they're completely blown away by all the terms like "leftie" and whatnot, and can't understand why any of that would matter
Even funnier is when somebody, usually an american, tries to use those buzzwords as an insult towards a russian. That just makes zero sense, but it's a good way to find people to filter out and ignore
No. 54476
true, when I traveled Russia (which I did a couple of times) I noticed that politics is something people prefer to not talk about. I was never sure whether it's because of lack of interest or because that's just something you don't discuss with people you're not very close to.

I had a Russian girlfriend for a few years and she was kinda promoting feminist ideas but never publicly though, just in the realm of close friends and relatives.

Also, I don't know a single person from Moscow who has ever visited the Gulag museum and Russians generally tend to not give two shits about the Stalinist era or even Stalin himself. Which, growing up in post-Nazi-Germany, just baffled me.
No. 54477
> I was never sure whether it's because of lack of interest or because that's just something you don't discuss with people you're not very close to.
Because Russia is not democratic country and nothing interesting happens here to discuss.
No. 54478
My main problem with any political discussion nowadays is that people seem to be incapable of not thinking in black and white.
>You're against A? That means you're for B!
>You like C? Why do you hate D?
No. 54481 Kontra
Given a specific case, your inferential pattern can be true though. Saying A (position yourself) can imply an affirmative stance towards position B as well. So it does not always have to be the case but it can work like that. Somebody who thinks hierarchy is natural and should be enforced is likely to also has a specific stance in a specific case that is the object of a (political) debate. So while I get your black and white conception, I think it does not fit 100% to the pattern you describe. And people can deny that inference, but it can still be the case, for various reasons. There is however a way of jumping to conclusions that can show themselves to be wrong once you further differentiate.
No. 54482
Sure, I am aware that it is not 100% applicable in all cases, but we are talking about politics here where there is seldomly a perfect dichotomy.
If I am not "right" I am not necessarily "left".
If I am against building mosques I am not necessarily a nazi (in fact in my case I am against building churches at all).
Granted, if I say "I am a firm believer in national socialism and think we should eradicate all jews", then it's safe to assume I think Ostpreußen should return to Germany, but that is, as you say, a very specific case.

But my point was more that people don't seem to either be able or want to have any kind of differentiated discussion, all you get is strong opinions and extremely emotional discourse and instant shitflinging caused by a prevalent tendency for generalization and Fefe syndrome (i.e. only reading headlines).
No. 54483 Kontra
>Seems like you always have to be political about anything nowadays.

I read historic sources from and texts about the 1970s and especially the 1980s atm. I can safely say that what you, OP, think is special for our time or "these days" was equally heated 40 years ago. There are two options for me then at this moment
1) the 2000s were less political or politics not as prevalent for some reasons
2) we got older and more aware of living in a society and hence notice how politics is an inevitable part.

I mean take the case of the imageboard, it could also very well be that it first was a libertarian space for young adults in a sense that ultimately got hijacked or people on it developed their political views over the years. Libertarians are not apolitical, far from it. The "no taboo" attitude does come with certain positions.

so you must be a liberal (with tendencies)!
No. 54487 Kontra
That's because in Eastern Europe politics is good for two things if you're not sitting "close to the fire", as in make your living from sucking the dick of someone in government for public money:
>Losing friends over a point you disagree on
>You make enemies with a different party alignment than yours who is more powerful than you and will remember you being a member of the enemy camp and will use his power against you
You can't win discussing politics here, and it's completely pointless.
No. 54488 Kontra
80 kB, 702 × 632
And also because most political labels mean fuck all since most people are politically illiterate for this very reason. Like in HS people thought I was an ardent communist, just because I wore red shirts often (I just have a lot of red shirts because my mother kept buying them for some reason) and I read a few books on the USSR, even though I'm probably more chauvinistic, nationalistic and elitist than what even the weirdest of communist sects can tolerate. I don't make sense as a political person

Politics fucking disintegrated here and the only choice remains between oligarchy and oligarchy but for Western corporations instead of local Döbrögys.
No. 54493
National Socialism is a concrete ideology with exactly one historical example, and which is ironically called "Socialism" in the name but is used to typify right wing extremism, and so it's really got little to do with right vs left ultimately.

A better example would be to say it's like trying to compare something as religious vs atheist because you see the same vagueries. Like what would you call Buddhism then that doesn't believe in God? How would you typifiy the New Agers and spiritualists or people that say "I ams spiritual" without ascribing to an organized religion? Really it's just down to the cancerousness of an Americanism because when people say right winger vs leftist what they are really talking about is through that cancerous lens of generalizations, exactly how it would be to talk about "religious" which also is unspokenly using American version of Christianism as opposed to say being a Sufi Muslim, or in talking the various permutations of Christianity. In your example to call something National Socialist is effectively the same as saying you are a Wahhabi or a Catholic, in which case it is a concrete definition and broad assumptions about other things are indeed possible because you are now talking the core canon of something firmly established.

No, no he is entirely and utterly correct in what he just said and it's largely cancerous Ameriganism in kulturkampf. Like for one example I am pretty hardcore about my environmentalism and concern for climate change. You would then falsely infirm I am somehow sympathetic towards the gay agenda or have an antipathy towards gun rights, which I am not. I try not to talk politics with Americans in particular because they immediately make those fucking retarded assumptions, like somehow because I am full on murica bear about muh gun rights I am somehow going to agree with your absolutely fucking retarded ideas about burning masks.

Moreover this isn't tied just to place but also to time, because what word does conservationism sound like? Oh yeah that's right, we did actually fucking care about conservation as Conservatives before, back in the times of Teddy Roosevelt, and back when Communism was associated with industrialization and "progress" and "change" and ripping nature the fuck apart whereas die Wald held a special place among the Nazis.

So yes A is meaningless in its implications towards C. Somebody can say they are an atheist and still hate the gay. Somebody else can say they are religious and believe in gay marriage somehow. It does not always follow and in fact you are much more likely to get a warped view of people agreeing with you about everything anyways because some people on the street might just nod their heads along because they don't feel like having a big ass argument at the metro about why you, as a religious fundamentalist, despise gun "rights" and think it's your religious duty to get all guns confiscated because of muh childrens. It doesn't even work in America which is the one place muh left vs muh right could even work more often than not. Like I've seen hardcore trumper 60 year old ladies hanging out with other old black women. I've seen neonazis despise Trump for well obvious Jewish reasons. I've likewise seen some (though admittedly not many) black people be serious MAGA supporters. Generalizations do not work unless they are super specific, in which case it stops being as much of a generalization.

Imageboards got hijacked by retards from stormfront and later Fox "news." Most of the people on imageboards today are literally boomers from reddit and twitter or their idiotic zoomer grandkids. Next to no oldfags exist on 4chan. This was a generational shift and a shift in the type of people posting there. Very few oldfags actually went full retard like these kids did.
No. 54496 Kontra
151 kB, 1024 × 1024
Pic made me chuckle like a silly kid.
No. 54503
I saw someone in the Internet claiming that H.P. Lovecraft was homophobic. So I kinda wonder if there's any evidence to substantiate that claim (like in Lovecraft's correspondence or somesuch; I doubt that he ever touched the subject of sexuality in his stories, because he pretty likely was an asexual himself and didn't care much about that sexual stuff at all), or the person making that claim was just some brainlet who, knowing that Lovecraft was racist (which is an undeniable fact), decided to associate poor grandpa Howard with the image of a stereotypical modern ultra-conservative Murrican?
No. 54509
There is:
>I guess it is true that homosexuality is a rare theme for novels—partly because public attention was seldom called to it (except briefly during the Wilde period) until a decade ago, & partly because any literary use of it always incurs the peril of legal censorship. As a matter of fact—although of course I always knew that paederasty was a disgusting custom of many ancient nations—I never heard of homosexuality as an actual instinct till I was over thirty…which beats your record! It is possible, I think that this perversion occurs more frequently in some periods than in others—owing to obscure biological & psychological causes. Decadent ages—when psychology is unsettled—seem to favour it. Of course—in ancient times the extent of the practice of paederasty (as a custom which most simply accepted blindly, without any special inclination) cannot be taken as any measure of the extent of actual psychological perversion. Another thing—many nowadays overlook the fact that there are always distinctly effeminate types which are most distinctly not homosexual. I don’t know how psychology explains them, but we all know the sort of damned sissy who plays with girls & who—when he grows up—is a chronic “cake-eater”, hanging around girls, doting on dances, acquiring certain feminine mannerisms, intonations, & tastes, & yet never having even the slightest perversion of erotic inclinations.
No. 54510
I have no idea wtf cake eater means, but reading that tends to make me wonder how effeminate he was and whether that was said defensively because he felt his own sexuality called into question.
No. 54512
He's probably talking about the socialite dandies. Lovecraft wasn't a macho or manly by any means, but I wouldn't describe him as effeminate, rather as "sickly" or "shy". If I were to be malicious I'd describe him as looking like an "inbred nerd".
If I recall correctly one of the reasons for his marriage falling apart was because his wife got tired of always having to initiate intercourse. Lovecraft was simply too shy and prudish to do it. (Funny thing is, he was kind of an anti-semite and xenophobic, incredibly proud of his English roots, yet this marriage was with a Jewish woman from New York, of course it was the woman who decided on the marriage and not him. Kinda makes the whole ordeal more funny. Don't remember if she was older than him, but a lot of internet weirdos today would say that Lovecraft indeed hit jackpot with this marriage.)

He was shy and had a broomstick up his ass larping as an Englishman, but he most definitely wasn't gay.
No. 54514
That is actually pretty tame and tolerant for its time. Not only he acknowledges that homosexuality may have biological causes and that in some ("decadent") periods it can be acceptable in society, but he also mentions that men can be effeminate without being gay (I guess, depending on the context, he was referring to people who would nowadays be called "metrosexuals" or maybe even with some trendy term like "non-binary" or "genderfluid").

His marriage seemed more like a business relationship than a romantic one. I'm not sure what Sonia Greene motives of marrying him were: whether she saw some potential in him as a successful writer so she could milk him for money, or she just took pity on a shy introvert and thought that without her he will be lost. Him not initiating sexual intercourse also confirms my suspicion of his asexuality.
No. 54516
61 kB, 600 × 917
>sickly, shy, prudish
>woman had to initiate intercourse even after he was married
>He was shy and had a broomstick up his ass larping as an Englishman,
Idk man that sounds pretty gay to me.

Seriously just think about it: word spreads around. People are going to talk and it's not beyond reason to think that some who knew him but not well enough or knew of him would begin asking questions and theorizing things. I mean just fuck's sake, I know a lot of you came from casey. You all remember well how manybernds got their sexuality questioned and people wondered if maybe they're just gay for those exact reasons, plus on top of all that he was a weirdo writer.

That whole passage sounds to me almost as though there were a subtly hidden subtext to things spoken to Lovecraft and he in turn was answering, or things he imagined then answered.

He had a lifetime of sex with a Jewish woman so while not the prettiest so far as I'm concerned he won.
No. 54517
>He had a lifetime of sex with a Jewish woman
He might not have even enjoy sex at all and just went with it for some inane reason like "everybody does that". Also, your Jewish women fetish is really weird, dude. I mean, I would understand fetishes for black, asian, indian women etc. because they're "exotic" and stuff, but Jewish? I dunno about the West, but in here Jewish women have more or less similar personalities to all other women, unless they come from predominantly Jewish communities or towns (like Odessa), and in a lot of cases due to mixing with Slavs they also look the same. There was a Jewish girl in my class (I think she was Jewish judging by her last name that ended with "-er"; she could also be of Baltic or even German heritage, dunno), and she was frigging ash blonde – a hair color that is pretty rare even among Slavs, let alone Jews. Another girl from another class actually had a Russian last name and looked just like any other girl out there, and I only knew she was Jewish because she said so herself. Is it a religious thing and you want to convert to Judaism?

On a side note, it's kinda funny that Lovecraft's marriage resembled my paternal grandfather's situation quite a bit. Grandpa too was a pretty introverted guy (although by no means as weird and stuck-up as Lovecraft: grandpa was just a simple guy of few words and he wasn't a part of intelligentsia but a construction worker), he married grandma – a Jewish woman seven years older than him, the marriage was her initiative (she was born in 1923, so after the WW2 there was a severe shortage of men around her age, and women like her were desperate for any husband; she somehow managed to hook up with a younger guy, so she sure as hell wasn't going to let him go :-DDDDDD), and it was his first and only relationship as far as I know. Grandpa and grandma had a much more stable relationship than H.P. and Sonia, though: they never really quarrel much and they lived together till early 00's when grandma died.
No. 54526
411 kB, 1280 × 955
By realizing one's ignorance over many fields and subjects, it becomes difficult to have the fanaticism for political panaceas that some do. Once you manage to detach yourself from radical politics, it becomes unreasonable to carry high militancy over small issues.
I now realize that the sort of thinking I championed is just detrimental to the world around me, and it was more of a personal drive to become a radical than any logical conclusion.

I guess I'm happy with my luck in life and the country I live in. I can't really ask for a better deal. If I was given absolute power to change the political landscape, I'd surely just make things worse.
No. 54527
Is that only for political opinions or are you not having any strong opinions on anything?
No. 54529 Kontra
414 kB, 1920 × 1920
I have strong opinions on a handful of subjects that interest my assburgers.
No. 54531
Don't know, I'm experiencing it pretty much every day, I'm ignorant of many things, there is a limited capacity to know and even if you know you can despise it. Thus you can still have strong political opinions and still be aware of ignorances, they are looming.
I think what might suit you or people that really want to be apolitical is the figure of the mystic as Jason Bahbak Mohaghegh frames it, as someone who has no interest in politics, concerned with self-isolation, and not with social relations. Sadly I don't find a quote in my book. I think he talks about it in this interview, he touches upon it a bit in the few minutes that follow. I just skipped through as it has been a long time since I listened to it.


No. 54532
>If I was given absolute power to change the political landscape, I'd surely just make things worse.
This is the same conclusion I ultimately came to and the fact that I am now so terrified of the possibility of having that kind of responsibility and direct influence over other people's lives, because I've actually been frequently wrong in the past. The big two recent ones which have either horrified me or made me cringe was the January 6th riot and ISIS, both of which felt like looking in a funhouse mirror of my younger selves, particularly my early ignorant radicalism as a teenager and in my early 20s ranting about the Illuminati and the system, in which case the idiots around me would have hijacked everything and made it even worse even than the Illuminati itself if such a thing was real and it was only the combination of my own ignorance and arrogance that made me believe I could truly have enough answers to take on those kind of responsibilities as a revolutionary. World history itself has shown that typically revolutionaries just end up making things worse for pretty much everybody except the small circle of power that would have beheaded them or shoot them soon after regardless.

With ISIS it was similar in that I saw how embrace of religious fanaticism is just likely to produce people uninterested in the spiritual or philosophical and we'd end up with the worst people representing religion as politics instead.

Other notable examples is as a kid I wondered why we didn't just topple evil dictators all over the world like Saddam Hussein and give them democracy and why we didn't just kill Bin Laden. I'd only need to wait a few years to have the answer and I've privately cringed and felt horrified and even guilty ever since. I asked my parents once about it and they said the difference was I was a child and didn't know better, and he was an adult man and the president of the United States and he should have. I think the bigger take away here is forgive us father for we are all children, even if we have put away childish things.
No. 54535
257 kB, 1280 × 1280
That worked for me a long time, because politics (in the English meaning for opinions, propaganda, campaigning, discussions about "the way") weren't so much in everything. Mostly it was policy, the meaning of law and "order" (things just worked out). Now there's politics everywhere, so it seems, and because of that I might even see politics where there aren't any involved. If politics are so present as today, and every peasant is able to engange in the hyperreal opinion-making online ...
So I have my political opinions, but I don't want to have much to do with it. I think that everything just works out if you have isolated reasonable policy-making and no mobs trying to establish new things you should care about every fucking week. No policy-making based on polls or hashtags. That would be fine. But that's gone.
So just keep your head clear of too much politics and focus on things that really matter to you in your "own world".
If you don't profit from engaging in politics directly, it makes no sense wasting time with it because it's unlikely your opinion matters in the end. Maybe I like a silent but efficient meritocracy, that might not always do what I want, but at least I can count on it, make plans for my own good based on longterm policy-making.
No. 54538 Kontra
This was a horrible interview. This fetishistic notion of the mystics (non-western! as they'll point out repeatedly) holding some sort of deep insight, with the host interjecting with some basic Leninist notions that are very out of place in this conversation.
You can practically feel the goatee fat dude losing himself in his fetishism over tribal cultures.
I hate intellectuals.
No. 54540 Kontra
The "noble savage" is a cornerstone of the modern liberal worldview.
No. 54544
This has nothing to do with the noble savage... But it's not the first time you shine with your knowledge on the enemy (I hate liberals btw).

Where is the fetish? I mean he studies Arabic literature, what do you expect when he elaborates on the figure of the mystic in Arabic literature/culture? The literature of the Arabian language world might have a different concept of a mystic. I think you hate more the people than even consider what they are saying. The fact that you had to mention the interviewer and the completely irrelevant ramblings of him shows that he bothers you more than the positions on what the notion of the mystic entails.

>his fetishism over tribal cultures

right, got some more banalities that aim somewhere far off the mark?
No. 54545
65 kB, 800 × 450
Fair comments.
I was blinded by some inexplicable hatred of both characters, but I suppose the host was worse.
It's just the sort of discussion I deeply hate, all carried with this aura of wisdom and deep knowledge that the ancients supposedly had - even though he shat on new age people he might just very well be a more verbose intellectual edition of them. The reverence and tone in which he delivers his takes on symbolic analysis of concepts that are just too vague and can be protrayed in however manner you want.
It's not like it's just arabic mysticism he sticks to- it's this cross cultural archetype of le wise old mystic that operates incomprehensible to us silly westerners. I just felt like the host should get hit with the shovel of historical materialism, and his orientalist sidekick goes along with him.
No. 54548
149 kB, 1280 × 774
>this aura of wisdom and deep knowledge that the ancients supposedly had

I think you misunderstand this as a new age alternative, this is not about bringing le real wisdom to viewers. Mohaghegh is a literature scholar his work especially this (Philosophy After Dark) and Omnicide are both conceptual (and this means literature and philosophy) and poetic as Robin Mackay said in the second link (Soundcloud). I think you mistake some philosophical-poetic yes he decided to mix this together, it can be done, after all this book does not get published in a XXX University Press work that is born out of (scholarly) interest of the Arabic speaking space and its history and culture for some deep spiritual insights. Of course, enchantment plays a role here, which is what I think bothers you. But enchantment is made obvious and both gone through in its function and as a concept, which I think new agism is would never do since it promises to connect to the cosmos in a direct link, there is no meta to be found in new agism, whereas Mohaghegh work does make it clear right from the beginning, while there is some ambivalence to it, of course, I think that is fruitful in making you think(R). Mohagheghs book that is discussed in that interview deals with the night and its entanglement with literature, so in what way does the night appear in (arabic) literature and instead of doing plain literature analysis of motives (which he also does e.g. criminality, secrecy) and what belongs to all of this, he extends it via ponderings of what effects the night has, what the night does to people, he does so by tracing certain archetypes or figures and their nights. This is quite a valid way to engage with a phenomenon. Basically, the night is conceptualized with Arabic literature as foil and as style. What separates it from pure analysis is the style, but this book does so with explicit intend, as I said it mixes analysis with poetics. If you don't like poetics or think poetics of other cultures are stupid then that is fine, but that is something different than your initial attack. And btw: the night and its importance in literature and as a natural, sensorial, and aesthetic phenomenon is also thought of in the west and probably all other cultures, in varying degrees, with perhaps sometimes overlapping thoughts and feels. Since he packs it with poetics, you think this is another new age sentiment that chooses the middle east instead of southeast Asia. I think it is perfectly fine to contrast the concept of the mystic as he developed it with predominant Instagram spiritualism in the US, as it underlines the notion of (apolitical) dedication of the mystic figure. What to make of it is another question, Mohaghegh is not a self help guru but a literature scholar and while he uses a poetic style, he is concerned with analysis and conceptualizations, not the path to self-fulfillment.
Speaking of ignorance this one got displayed. Mind you, what the interviewer has to say about the USSR or marxism and its conceptualizations throughout history was never of any concern, the object was the conceptualization of the figure of the mystic. I suppose you are the USSR autist, Mohaghegh is an autist as well, he just has another field of interest.
No. 54549 Kontra
>its history and culture for some deep spiritual insights

and not*
No. 54566 Kontra
Where is bunkerchan, trapo trap house, and leftypol? Are they all imageboards or are they like some zoomers discord servers or something?