Grass Paper: The Green Way to Produce Paper and Cardboards – Eppendorf Handling Solutions

From wood to grass – a green idea is born: Grass paper. Learn more about the green alternative to conventional paper.
— Read on

Repost of The Consequences of Catholicism for Political Theory

There’s an endemic debate over what people are saying when they refer to ‘the west’. Is the west defined by its whiteness, its wealth, its liberal …

The Consequences of Catholicism for Political Theory

—-I love this post. I think this analysis is clear, and correct.

Ive been following Studebaker’s blog for some years now and I have to say that most of the time I disagree with his political analyses that try to verge over into the philosophical. but this one I think is spot on. So much so that I think I’m going to have to reference it in a paper that I’m developing, hopefully, right now.

I enjoy how he describes the development of what we understand as liberalism, or perhaps just this current brand of liberalism, or perhaps the liberalism that we find now. it makes so much sense: When we put morality as the criterion through which politics it’s justified, we find ourselves caught in a paradox, but more a contradiction, in the effort to ground a real milieu of distinctly individual entities, The name for which is pluralism.

This explains for me the problems that I associate with “conventional philosophy”;  namely, how do we ground the multiplicity of expressed discourses, what we know of as subjectivity, in an arena which gives justice to each as well as all? But further, and I think this is the more aggravating of problems of plurality, how do we give justice to those entities which arrive unethically? Which is to say, for example, terrorists, or murderers, or despots or abusers? I think this is the significant question that Studebaker is outlining. For, we would have to be able to justify the actions of such entities within a larger scheme of ethics, which if we are putting morality above politics, further aggravates the problem because we already know that we can’t find it such a ground in plurality.

So good!

Ben, maybe you could give me the proper citation for this post? Xx

Feeling Blah, and then slightly worse…

We are languishing.
— Read on

—– Languishing. I like this article. I like that it gives us a new word. And I was feeling a little better Because the “we’re all in this together” thing, and then this happened:

We still have a lot to learn about what causes languishing and how to cure it…


…and where I was starting to feel better, I was suddenly disgusted. That phrase just revealed a really depressing ideal that underpins peoples sense of mental health things. It is really a kind of Mindlessness, as opposed to the great fad-of-mistake that we generally define as Mindfulness.

Awareness, without judgement is key.

To be honest, I see a mental health fad-idealism catalyzed by the pandemic as the main problem. It is the problem that is the problem, and less the idealized content that ‘problem’ supposes.

The propaganda of mental disease that pervades the ideal of ‘mental health’ in our modern manner is clearly evident in that author’s very casual manner he speaks of how to cure this languishing disease.

All I really got to say to the author’s support: Thanks for helping my job security.

Sure, we totally can frame everything in the context of problem/disease and solution/cure.

No problem folks!

But it’s kinda depressing.


WStay tuned for my papers on the issue.x

Posting: On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz –

(43) (PDF) On Idealistic Ethics, Nihilism, and the Analyticity of ‘Black Maleness’: A reply to Tommy Curry | Patrick F Bloniasz –
— Read on

— Comment-rely to come.

The Nation Faces Onslaught Of Gun Violence

6 Shot At Child’s Birthday Party As Nation Faces Onslaught Of Gun Violence | HuffPost
— Read on

—- It is astounding and so terrible and sad.


I wonder though if the “onslaught of gun violence” is just media hype.

I wonder if people just do random shit. All the time. People kill people. All the time. For every reason and no reason.

I wonder if it’s not new at all, but just that the news has to make money, on one hand, we have now the media ability to capture all these events (that have been happening since forever), and…

And we want to believe there is such a thing as a civilized and ethical human being.

I wonder if the reasons are just justifications, that ‘people’ need to have a reason why some one is screwed up to do terrible things.

I wonder if people just do stuff. Good and bad.


cant have that, now, can we ?

Deceleration, Rationality and Singularity


The problem with the big worry about what is generally called Accelerationalism, a philosophical idea which spans modern knowldge lately, is that its figures and worries are based in the “y factor real Ubiquitous Assumption”, that I’m calling it right now. lol.

The X factor is taken to be a sort of ground or a sort of stable place from which Y is measured, and so from this perspective things are accelerating as the graph with us represent; that is, the rate of things is getting greater as compared to the nonmoving ground of x. The graph is taken to reflect a truth of reality which corresponds with the view that is already given And assumed of all things knowable from the human perspective.

Yet if we change how were viewing what is occurring then we can see that the Graff is actually representing a deceleration. It is not so much that technology or the world or whatever sort of frame you want to put to it, which everyone seems to love to do nowadays, is accelerating, it’s probably more likely that it’s decelerating and what is actually occurring is that people are getting more anxious because the world is not corresponding with the way that they think that things should go.

This is to say that the “here-now” on the graph is always in the same place. That the graph shows what is always occurring with reference to what is knowable.

This is to speak to a theory that I’ve been having run in the background. this is the theory that what consciousness does is culminate. It’s function is to make semanticculmination, to have things mean, and to have meaning culminate into something that makes sense, and then to have some thing that makes sense culminate in a “grand scheme of the universe”, which ironically Graham Harmon has termed “undermining” and “over mining”.

As we begin to become aware of our emotions as not some passive thing, not as controlled by a rational mind, but rather that the view that is rational, the rational mind itself, is always in effect by the emotional engagement with the world, and that rationality is like riding on a train that’s going 100 miles an hour, or riding on a train that’s going 10 miles an hour. From the perception of the rider it seems like there is “rationality” but in a see ctuality their situation is going faster or slower. Or various awareness of existential anxiety, or what they used to call dread. Rationality is the response of consciousness attempting to keep itself fixed in its reality.

Deceleration, by contrast, looks at the graph from the standpoint of the Y-axis. And this is to say that if you look at the graph from that standpoint, it is not that things are accelerating but that the rate of motion is decreasing. Things are coming to a halt. The relation internal to time ands it perceived rate has been slowing down so far as how “quickly” we are moving into the “future”. It is not that worrisome then that we might be accelerating to some unknown singularity where we become so fast that… I don’t know? What are we worried about? As Kierkegaard: Where are they going so fast?

well; from my perspective, they are going nowhere fast, but indeed to get anywhere we want to really be, anywhere better fit everyone we could say, they are always going slow.

Somehow, I have a suspicion that in the same way that we thought that in the year 2000 there was going to be some cataclysmic computer Internet collapse and everything’s gonna go to hell, this idea of acceleration It’s just a point of worry, and has no true basis and what is actually occurring. 

It is, for a word anxiety informing what then appears real and rational, rather than what is true informing those things.


I a speak of rationality as an ability of consciousness and not an aspect of consciousness.

it is the difference between saying that Red is some thing that exists inherently in the universe such that Red appears as such, and Red as something that is able to be discerned Oh there is really nothing that is ever actually Red in itself.

but note, I’m not making an argument about whether or not Red actually exist in the universe. Indeed, I would say that Red actually does exist in the universe, and I am also saying that rationality exist in the universe, as well as consciousness. But then I am also saying that given any particular instance of one of these universal objects, they likewise must arise under certain conditions. These conditions are known, and thus have relationships with one another. And so when we talk about consciousness we are able to understand it in a different manner than we usually do, in the same way that I’m talking about what exists and what conditions actually are.x

Systems and Religions

A small, practical system is akin to ritual.

A big, metaphysical or logistical system is akin to religion.

The function is the same, how people respond to them are the same, the associated processes attributed to thinking are the same, the theoretical postulates of foundational causes and purported outcomes are the same.

The only difference between systems and religions is located in the religious operation of determining differences in overt meaning.

What is covert, hidden or denied as the actuality of real human involvement is, for any other meaning, prohibited or what we call heretical or sinful.

The words or terms are incidental to the truth of the situation while the semantics are instrumental. The effective conflation and thus interchangeability of words and meanings upon context, language and intention is what we call dogma.

The question “for what purpose am I involved by my assertion” is substantial.x

👽 #aliensandhereticsunited