>muh jew

Again. American.

The point is that when anyone describes themselves and tries to understand themselves, they never quite capture themselves.

If I describe myself fully, I must describe myself as having described myself, and having described myself as having described myself and so on if I'm to provide an accurate description.

Through my practice, I can abstract qualities out of myself, but I have already moved.

Realising this is the key to moving even further. If I have a clear grasp over what situation I am in, then I can work to change it in some way.

Even if I have a gun to my head, the fact remains: I can still do something even if the chances are almost nil.

I lack the ability to predict the future to an ultimate extent because of my own practice as a subject always escaping me with every thought.

Moreover, I am fundamentally disconnected from a total recognition of myself.

Determinism breaks down because I am a thinking subject.

It is my task to recognise what I am to an ever-greater extent if I am to know what to do with myself.

I can become a void in my own worldview.

I can either pretend that my worldview will hold weight and that the world stretches as far as my current ideas of it, or I can accept that there's always something bigger which is guaranteed by my very own movements.

There's always more.

This self-reflexivity is everywhere in logic. Take the liar paradox, for example.

'This sentence is not true.'

It is a paradox, but the movement between not being true and being true with every iteration of thought still exists. It cannot be collapsed into a single moment, though.

In a single moment, the sentence is true or it is not.

Two movements are born: becoming true and becoming false.

Likewise, a subject cannot contain a complete understanding of themselves, since that understanding would explode to infinity.

***It means that subjects must be regarded as processes, forever capturing.***

I can therefore submit to something which relates to my idea of myself - an anonymised or at least pseudonymised entity which represents this idea.

This is what Lacan calls the big Other.

With a capital O.

In Communism, this Other is the thing that we must ruthlessly and consciously hammer into whatever shape is necessary.

The Other represents ideology, or more broadly the network of social relations as it faces every subjectivity.

Every person, every group of people.

Our ideas of ourselves are crafted in relation to our understandings of the world.

and you still think that communsim is doing what ever you fucking want

It's about getting there.

Nice recycled straw man.

you honestly sound like a dictator

A dictator of the self.

that you would force uupon every one else

Not if others can realise it too.

How do you think I realised this?

Through a gun being held to my head?

lol confirm or die ?

It sounds you have issues . like a lot of em

'conform or die' is inescapable as far as you're concerned.

Therefore it's meaningless.