What do we have for example in the United States race for the presidency? And keep in mind this is particular to our current race but is indeed just the furthest example as it is also an indicator of a progressive systemic motion, and as well and example of how truth precipitates from real appropriations.
What we have in our candidates? Basically we have two candidates that exist as a legacy of money and power. Yet it matters only a little where they came from; that Hillary Clinton’s grandmother was poor and Donald Trump father was ultra rich, really makes no difference from a systemic standpoint. What we have now is two heads of the hydra. On the Clinton side we have a pattern of behavior involved with salesmanship backroom deals and basically huge money hidden behind the wizards curtain. On the other side with Trump we have the same behavior yet admitted openly in as much as he is a real estate mogul. He blatantly and unapologetically hides his money . Honesty and dishonesty tend to play with whether or not they are admitting their basis in the system and the matter they go about admitting it. In fact there’s little difference between the way they probably go about their lives.
For conventionally realist these truths hardly matter. For the conventionalist already excepts the status quo of the given situation of basic trend towards oligarchy and aristocracy; they admit it in their denial that is activism upon the democratic ethical maxim. This person that brings down the decision to real situations of say ability to make a living, which is called a job, pivots of domestic and foreign relations, and the issue of honesty which is really based in how crassly one wants to speak about their bases of happiness being founded in global oppression. It’s all a magical act of slight of hand and mirrors; most real people do not care about the far reaches of their ethical life. Even those who would attempt to apply such ethics to a deconstruction of political activity, inevitably must admit the shortcoming of the discourse and fall back into the comfort of their unethical positions. This is reality.
Yet it appears that what is truly occurring is that not merely that the richest of the rich are extending further away from the poorest of the poor in the median and mean of living humanity is shifting more towards the poor, relatively speaking; rather we are concerned with perceptual limits of real appropriation of meaning. At some point a certain type of singularity occurs in a persons ability to conceive of value, and ironically this is where power begins. For before in the western enlightenment there was always some sort of horizon that we could bring closer to us to enact some sort of change, to counterbalance what seems to be excessive. Yet the volume of this excessivenessappears to have succeeded ingrowing past the ability of activism to leverage force upon it. Indeed this is what the economic summits are, The G4 and the G7’s and such meetings, Are really gatherings of people that have exceeded the reach of activist power, or want to. These people and groups exist as a force unto themselves because the vacillations of market value within their scope of money, which is power, no longer concern them because even the greatest vacillations only involve a small percentage of the value behind such power.
It is no joke north some urban legend that markets can be manipulated at this point in a quite proactive and intentional way, and we should also vest be aware that in the future it will most likelyget more so such that those groups and people will indeed have to pull away from their ethical lines to the rest of the common humanity; ironically it is this common humanity the idea of the ethical linkage and that the very powerful have to an idea of a common humanity, within which we can be assured that our lives will only proceed in the same manner that we have always perceive them, which is to say that we have a voice and are able to counteract what we can perceive as an ethical behavior or situations.
The solution then seems not to be located in more activism or more transparency, because the nature of power the nature of our system is that even in these acts it is caught up systematically with the avoidance of such ideals. Activism will yield exactly what it’s looking for: problems and solutions which leads to more problems and solutions which give a certain segment of society purpose and meaning. Transparency will yield further information to grant the notion of transparency itself to be acted upon again within the ethical grounds of what is again perceived as normal and ethical human justice. For the rest the very idea of conspiracy will further prove to function for the system, to allow it to behave as an arena unto itself that is in capable of addressing those factors that have precipitated beyond its ability to appropriate.
The solution. That appears seems to be only able to be activated along and historical motion where acceptance is not viewed as excepting that which is unacceptable; rather from a systemic standpoint it is the gradual acceptance involved in the change of how we appropriate reality, what constitutes for us the nature of reality.
In this we have yet another fact of humanity and how it operates that can only be viewed from a certain historicity, from a certain view that ultimately we must consider as not real.