Monthly Archives: January 2018

The Wolves Are Circling.

The wolves are circling.

The present administration of the United States is a reconnoissance operation of Wall Street (read: very greedy people). It is a mission to see what the American people will allow, what the system will permit, what kind and how much abuse will they take. What we are finding is that the system works too slowly, but also, that people have been lulled by capitalistic luxury into complacency. Relying upon the system, greed will win and the people will allow themselves to be abused by ethically compromised people who wish to manipulate situations in order to gain the most for themselves.

We may find that this is just the beginning, and that the abuse will continue to worsen until its abuses lay outside the ability for people to notice and or care about.

Here we go, down, down, down….

Ethics as Logistical Outcome: it is incumbent upon intelligent people to look at conflicts between groups of people, that activity we generally call war, and call them stupid.

There is no rational way of looking at the world any longer. And I would submit that anyone that says that they’re looking at the world in a rational way has lost her mind.

This is to say that when we honestly look out into the world of human activity, which is the global world of actual interactions of people and groups and nations etc., The first impression has to be that human beings are retarded. If the first impression is not human beings are utterly stupid, then I think we are in a situation of denial.

There is been no time in history except maybe in the past 100 years where people looked at another cultural group and try to empathize and understand where they’re coming from through their belief systems.

The contradiction involved with “understanding another person’s belief” reveals the problem of our times has this nonsensical ideal extends out as an ideological construct upon what it is supposing to be not merely an Nother ideological construct.

The extended analysis of this ridiculous situation is that ethics is not something that an individual human being comes upon because of some sort of religious or ideological, or some manner of a central thinker pondering various aspects of logical inferences and empathetic understandings of how other people might want to view their world. I submit that perhaps in some sort of past, human beings were able to uphold such fantasy because it wasn’t a fantasy. But if we hang onto the modern ability of our sense of intelligence and ability to process information, to there by get out of more deep level of awareness of humans being, if we really look out in an attempt to understand what is occurring in this come flagger ration and saturation of expressed human intelligence, it is only with in a certain type of ethical priority that we become able to see that this ethics is based in a logistical situation more than it is in some sort of universal goodness, or ideological scheme of good and evil where by gaining our liberal ethics redundantly.

it is offensive to most people to think about the reason why I have an ethics of good or evil is because I am utterly incapable of destroying that group that has a different ideological base then I do.

History of humanity across the globe could be understood in the context of a faith in and ability to destroy another group totally. And ideological base that is different from the one group that I am in is not considered as such, it is considered as something that is not natural or something that is evil, or in our latter part of history, our modern part of history, something that we have a right to exploit without considering their opinion, what we have come to call “colonialism”.

Until till most recently we still had an idea that we could completely destroy this other group that represents something unnatural. But what we have been finding at least through the 20th century and into the 21st-century, is that we are unable to do this. This is the foundation of modern capitalism.

Capitalism is based in the fact that we cannot totally destroy our enemy. There is always an excess, always collateral residuum in some form, and capitalism at heart functions on this excess.

The ethics of capitalism confines what is ethical to a view that is unable to see beyond itself. Capitalism depends on the fact that no one will be able to overcome their liberal sense of human ethical propriety. They will not be able to because they are unable to see and unable to admit, it is offensive, a “sin” to consider that the only reason I have a sense a good or evil – that is based in my wanting to understand someone else’s “belief system”, and that we should except everyone for whatever they might believe or whatever their culture tells them is right or wrong or truth or false – is because that I cannot destroy those people. In short the reason why I might get along with my enemy is because I can’t kick his ass. There is probably not some inherent goodness in me that prevents me from not destroying this person that I hate; it is because I cannot, I am unable to, destroy this person that I compensate for the lack that exists within me, to their by come to an “ethical” conclusion that I should really try to understand this person and understand this aspect of me that is hating this other person.

It is possible, in the end, that when I look at the reason why I might hate this person ( or group) it is really because I cannot remove him from my life and if this person was removed or if I was able or “ethically allowed” to remove this person from my life then I would not hate this person because that person would not exist.

It is the same with groups.

I can stand back and I hear about all these wars and conflicts between nations and I cannot help but think that these people are just plain fucking stupid. There is no understanding either side, because it soon as we come to some conclusion of understanding either side eventually there’s going to be some other side somewhere else that that particular group that just made up is going to have war with.

So perhaps this essay should be more properly called “contemplation on the futility of addressing human idiocy”

🐶. Wow. Who wrote that?

Hard core.

Indeed, I have a compassion for these idiots. But it is the simple fact that my compassion will not prevent these idiots from going to war that really presents to me how I am involved in and humanity of which I’m not really involved. It must be that these people who are at war do it for some reason that is beyond rational or what I could consider intelligence. Whatever it is that is compelling these people to go to war has to be something else, it has to be in some other manner that their brain functions, but if I am intelligent then it must be that they are not intelligent, and if they are intelligent then I will fully admit that I am not intelligent at all.

Fund the operation of the US government by docking our representatives salary.

cut our representatives pay in order to keep the government running.

Why are Americans so stupid? Because we keep allowing our leaders to be incompetent.

My opinion is that every single congress person and senator that is working right now should be fired, should not be reelected in the next cycle.

All of them, not some of them, all of them are incompetent because they can’t do their jobs. Any other person in the whole of the United States who worked as incompetent Lee as our elected officials do would be fired tomorrow.

Get the morons out.

My new theory of humanity:

Most people are complete idiots. Very few people have any intelligence at all. Positions of power are mostly occupied by most people.


Disenchantment and the Long Game.


“…before we get to the idea of a disenchantment [that has always accompanied humanity in its existence, ] …we first have to address the insistence of enchantment.

Enchantment, in this context, is the view that what is teleologically sound indeed reflects an actuality of human special motion. This is not to say that humans have has no history. Enchantment is the operation of meaning that conveys humanity within a context of a necessary progress, a motion where humanity is not only capable of upholding an actual memory of a truth, of some sort, to thus be able to move forward; which is to say, roughly, toward “the good”; ‘the good’ is a conflation of meaning in which the ideas of humanity, civilization, technology and general well-being are joined together to be ideologically very difficult to separate.  This type of meaning, though, this type of progress, does not indicate a potential for belief; this situation does not rely upon nor insinuate its potential within belief, or a capacity or ability to believe whether or not it may be the case; on the contrary, belief itself is based in the idea of such progress.

This is so much to say that a human being is not able to ‘force’ itself to have an existence which does not find itself within a context of historical progress. How could one even get out of bed, tell her parents and siblings that she loves them, go for a hike in the summer air without a historical sense of progress: There can be no such conceptions without the knowledge that she was born, has grown in physicality and knowledge, has relations with various people or wish to recreate or exercise or relax without a correspondent history of some sort installed before hand.

We cannot make an argument in this case. The argument is negated in the fact that no argument of this sort can be made. The issue is how far this situation can be extended and still be viable for Being…

The logical conclusion of the history of philosophy finds itself, in the end, as contradiction; there is no discussion that decides this, the discussion itself reveals the case.

Certain repercussions arise from this ‘end’, but we will not go into the various formations here

Instead, I invite the reader to make this jump with me.

“Any concept is a concept ‘within’. The mechanism which allows for this confinement is operating successfully when the confinement is not noticed; we take a certain tac and begin in a certain corner to say that the mechanism for the concept functions to avoid recognition of its operating. This adjustment is so seamless that even while toward the closing in on the corner such that the concept of the limit of the concept arises to view, the mechanism will uphold its function to allow the concept to reveal its position, its truth, through the concept that will then thereby allow it to remain unknown; the activity of the concept itself moves in such a way to ‘change the past’ while establishing the change as an object that ‘has not changed’; this is to say, the concept remains viable no matter what it shows. This is the way of conventional method…

“This is the contradiction that has occurred in the ideal of ‘limit’, as the post-modern/existential revelation, that has brought about the culprit as the “Copernican” or “Kantian” central thinker,  and the ‘culprit-solution’ of the speculative ideal of ‘outside’. What has occurred is the mechanism of the concept, revealed, has functioned properly and its slight of hand has allowed philosophers to continue in the concept without ever really confronting the mechanism.

We likewise cannot be too quick to talk about biology and neurology, for these help to avoid the issue, and indeed add support to the avoidance of the mechanism by having the concept find its basis in a mechanism that is evidently getting beyond the concept; this is the nature of consciousness: No argument can be made to deny this situation. this is what happens whenever the concept reveals its basis to itself: Another aspect arises to indicate to the conceptualization that its concept is more than a concept, i.e. that the concept has found its basis, it object.



Consider now the 1970’s movie “Logan’s Run”.(I have not read the book, but am only going off the movie’s telling.)….

…(Spoiler) In the end, that which brings down the facade of the City’s operation is the contradiction involved with the City’s Operating System recognizing the necessity for an object that corresponds with the term: “Sanctuary”. Logan is sent by the operating system to find out about this ‘sanctuary’ that lay outside the City; Logan will be permitted by the OS to go outside the ‘seals’ (hermetical seal?), outside of the the definition of what the City is. No one in the city (is supposed to have) has ever heard of the word let alone what it might mean, so inclusive the City in its operation is.

The operating system thus sends Logan 5 out to find this sanctuary because, to the OS, the word exists and has meaning and so must therefore have a corresponding object. It is interesting that when a human interacts with the City OS, the procedure is to “identify”….

“Logan returns from the outside and the OS ask him if he found sanctuary. Logan is in a kind of human-computer interface, but he refuses (for some reason) to answer the computer who sent him and so the computer ‘hacks’ Logan to find the answer. The answer that is reluctantly given by Logan is that there is no sanctuary (the outside is just outside of the City, bare nature, but there is no ‘peaceful’ place of freedom). This “does not program”, it does not compute. The computer melts down, the computer is destroyed, and everyone in the City is let out of the City, the first humans to see what is beyond or outside of the City in over 2000 years…

The City was constructed to save humanity from an ecological crisis; ‘civilization’ was informed as a response to the hostility of the natural world. But over time, what was outside was removed from sensible knowledge, from the ability of knowledge to make sense of, from the truth of the outside. The ‘outside’ was a catalyst for the consolidation of knowledge and civility; after a very long period of time, the outside became inconcievable in-itself and the actual reality of the outside was a function of maintaining containment of the City, such that knowledge of the actual outside was a contradiction in terms, a notice for the collapse of sense-knowledge.

“We are not told in the movie why the OS feels that it must send someone to locate Sanctuary. Neither do we really know why Logan does not want to tell the computer that there is no sanctuary, nor why the actual answer causes the computer to fry itself. (Maybe the book has more answers)…

Nevertheless, we can see an analogy to my point in this essay.

…What is ‘outside’ is not the reality of what is actually outside. What is outside is only understood within the context of that which has posited ‘outside’; the actuality of what is outside, in the ability for the scheme of meaningful reality, is unable to admit that its version of outside has no ability to recognize what it posits as ‘outside‘….

“…This is the case with conventional philosophy. It recognizes the ability of its conceptual scheme only and any position that is not already contained by the conventional route simply “does not program” and is outright, automatically and in due course, systematically denied. Yet, because such an outside is indeed truthfully encountered, the position revealed by its presence within the convention, as an ‘un-communicated truth’, functions (ironically) to upset and ultimately fry the “OS” or the ‘scaffolding’ (Wittgenstein) of reality. And as this melt-down occurs, the only manner by which that reality is able to continue to uphold its manner, the manner buy which (supposedly) ‘life is upheld’, is to affirm its truth in denial…

“Take for example ‘climate change’….

“The questions [that continue,] allow it to continue to get worse. But even while we make antagonists out of those who do not believe that climate change, or global warming, is real, those who would want to implement changes to hold off or avoid the ‘bad’ repercussions of climate change are totally incapable of bringing those ‘good’ protocols about…”

From book 3 of The Philosophical Hack, due 2018.

c.2018 Lance A. Kair