In Project Mayhem, we don’t have a name…

But in death, we do….

His name is George Floyd.

His name is George Floyd.

_His Name is Robert Paulson.

When you start thinking in the terms of the movie “Fight Club“, the world becomes a different place.

Project mayhem is the nonsense of the real world; the members of project mayhem , which at one time you were a part, begin to adhere to motto standards which appear more and more insane.

At first, you think you are insane…but it is not really you that is insane.

This is mental health in a nut shell. For real.

There is “mental health” which is the effort to get you back in line (conventional-ideological)…

…and there is “mental health” which is coming to terms with who and what you are in the world (existential-philosophical).

And

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

20 thoughts on “In Project Mayhem, we don’t have a name…”

  1. Not “accidents” as much as “extents”. Lol. But the accident of the auto correct putting in the word “accident” in place of the word “accidents” is rather Kierkegaardian. Lol

  2. I never thought of it this way as the movie Fight Club. Do you think that mental illness is a global collective issue and not only individual? I like to think that there is a link between society and mental illness. To D&G capitalistic liberal societies made us paranoid or schizophrenic.

    1. The story of fight club is that a dude is not happy with his life and begins to have a mental break. The main feature of this break is that he moves from fighting himself with others who do the same for themselves. This group then moves to fight ‘the system’ (project mayhem) in a certain effort that appears to have meaning behind it, but really is just random acts of meaningless destruction. When a member of the group gets killed, the protagonist ‘realizes’ how ridiculous it is, and tries to get the people too see that it is not worth it. But the group simply are not able to understand him. This then brings the protagonist to further enter his delusion until he ‘kills himself’ which is really just killing that part which created and implemented and manifested the whole fantasy, which then coincides with the actual brining down of the illusion of not only ‘the system’ but also ‘the cause’. All this for the sake of true love, of accepting the ‘goal’ of the truth of himself and the object of his love. And yet we are left to wonder if the world really changed, and whether it ever changes. Despite our individual ‘causes’.

      1. Yes absolutely. I know the movie and watched couple of times and it is one of my favourites. Great comparison. Thank you

      2. Well. The reason why I answered you question with a short synopsis of the movie. Is Becuase the movie tells of what happens in a particular kind of non-centralized (centered in ideology) experience of being human coming to terms with the impossibility (absurdity) that ideology does not determine ones being. It is a story, told in many ways through many stories, one could say, of the experience of authentic Being in the world. What happens when Being comes upon itself in acceptance. It is less a “working thru issues” or “what one believes” or “something to understand” as much as it is a direct experience of
        Living. As I say, what happens typically as such an awareness unfolds as a conscious human life; it is never truncated. Or rather, modern ideology usually imposes a truncated version of being upon the ideal of the individual human being.

        I cannot say to you that “society is schizophrenic” Becuase if I am to speak truthfully I have no belief about what society makes of me or what society enacts upon me Becuase it is ultimately the enactment of myself as world. It unfolds as experience which is the engagement of self and ideology, and of self and world. And details are ultimately an act of denying that I should be having any battle, confronting anything but psychological dysfunctions against normalcy. Which themselves are implicit to the experience.

        It is how we are able to view, to see, which determines what exactly ideology “is doing”. For it is only doing the only thing it can do, just as I am, as we manifest together as a relationship. The incredulity towards metanarratives is the dis-belief that my life is determined, and has been replayed or can answer to a regular enactement. Modernity says: we are subjects of our own world! Not schizophrenic, but only society or ideology is- but not me! As though society is indeed imposing something foreign upon me. This is the basic issue of authenticity: Am I being imposed upon?

        I assumed you’ve watched the movie. But, in my understanding of D and G, I am not sure how I would answer your question and be true to the meaning of D and G as well as the coincidence that could be said to be the media as well as my involvement and relationship to them all.

        To me. You asked a strange question.

        A body without organs is a body which authentically exists and thus arises in ideology aware of the imposition as indeed an aspect of the Being which is not being imposed upon. The “organs” are the ideological details, One could say. There is no argument that ever moves one out of the modern schizophrenic situation; only a denial of what is occurring can do that. But indeed, such a move out of the situation is what modernity perpetually informs us to be able to do. It presents to us a way out which we never take Becuase we are seeing ideology as something that is imposed upon us, as though we can make choices to get out. But the choice is alway ideological. Hence, I think I’ve brought up before: the solution is to make the choice which cannot be made.

        Like the protagonist: he did not make a choice to blow is head off. It was inevitable Becuase of the situation he could not escape once he Became aware of the problem with having a problem with oneself (which arises in the act of true love) Tyler Derden — someone who has a name (the protagonist never has a name)— the absurdity of living towards death, through engagement with that part of Being which is indeed “dead” (in death, members of project mayhem do have a name): modern identity is inherently a subjective dissociation.

      3. Stories make the world go round and round. Not machines. Not technology. We believe in stories and fiction, whether they are called “religion” or “ideology” or whatever.

        Believing in somethings influences my choices. Sometimes against myself I choose to act in accordance with what I believe in. Therefore society creates schizophrenia. It tells you to be free minded and at the same time to be aware from others because they are mean. It tells you to help the poor and at the same time to become rich. So you go through life juggling with all these different ideas. Finally, it leads to mayhem and it’s even happening in the US!

        So if this isn’t schizophrenia, I wonder what it is.

      4. schiz·o·phre·ni·a
        /ˌskitsəˈfrēnēə,ˌskitsəˈfrenēə/

        a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.

        Yup. 😄

        In a way, until recently, I was always confused. I acted as though everything was alright, and indeed, in myself I was coherent and everything made sense. But looking back, I never knew quite how to be or what do to. So maybe that’s why My reading of D and G resonated so thoroughly that I’ve always felt there was nothing else I needed of really could say about their work. I call it “philosophical zen”. It appears to me what they describe is a sort of “well, there it is, and thats all folks! See ya later!” Lol.

        I don’t know if you saw my question before:

        Do D and G give us a way through it all?

        For even the most acute schizophrenic patient in my hospital, we, as a treatment team, pose a way back for them, in a way.

      5. Oh yes. The Matrix. One of mine too.

        You know, one day, when your life relaxes a little bit and you have some time, maybe…

        Yours in mind thinking appears to me like a kind of infinity loop. Like you and I meet somewhere in the cross, in the middle, but both mentally and physically in space we are on the opposite curves from each other.

        … it would be interesting, it crosses my mind, if you and I produced some sort of book where we address the same topic and we tagteam throughout the book on the individual topics.

        Just daydreaming….🌤

    2. …one might see that, through the death of Robert Paulson, project mayhem is understood by the protagonist to be the world in general, and his attempt to correct people who he appears to be leading shows him that those people are no different than ‘the world’ in that they have a ‘a cause’ now, that they are unable to see past. His ‘seeing the truth’ of his situation, compelled him further into the internal battle that is really ‘not insane’. But is actually it’s authentic opposite.

      1. …but indeed The issue that he ultimately battles with is that He is Ultimately responsible not only for Robert Paulson’s death, but for this cause that people have Rallied around which is really nonsense, but that the people indeed see as filled with meaning and purpose.

      1. … Ideology is but a particular kind of idea, a particular formation, if you will. A particular object.
        It sucks in, it processes, it spits out. It is not “me“. But indeed it seems to encompass “everything else”. And yet through this everything else I am able to understand that, through the idea, I am able to be understood as a machine, which is to say that the world can only appear as it appears in context. This machine that I am calling “ideology“, is a thing onto itself with which I have a relationship. It does not to find me any more than a blade of grass defines me, which indeed it does to certain extents.

        It is in the context of these “accidents“, incidentally, that Graham Harmon talks about how philosophy typically over minds and undermines what objects are for the sake of the phenomenological centralized subject being. Can’t see moves to talk about objects. And indeed, is where I also center my discussions mainly.

      2. Spinoza’s defintion of desire, called conatus, is energy. It is common to all living beings and helps them to persevere in their being, meaning it is the instinct of survival.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s