Amazon is threatening to pull the plug on Parler because of the content of its users. Google Play and Apple Store are pulling the Parler app from …
— My mind Goes two places:
* those fear-actors will run all the more silent. The dark web will have plenty of people who will make a platform for their very small minded activism. (Is my bias showing?) and will organize more and more skillfully and intentionally.
*now days, there are too many people and correspondingly too many huge money interests to allow a collapse of anything so necessary to contentment as the huge blissful consumer capitalism. Even the revolutionary/anarchism/hackers rely upon the huge-money capitalism.
Ironic for this antisocial miscreant: i side on Power: We are already past a critical threshhold for crude overthrow ideology to ever work in the way those people imagine.
Freedom is established by the ecopolicial system; if ever there was doubt, we know now. Even the thought experiment of “what if” is merely a mirror of systemic norms: Global Civilization (or Galactic Humanity ??)will not recede; There is simply too much humanity for that to happen.
Yes. Maybe people will get hurt. There will be some insurrections.
Foucault’s implication for the clinical mind is operative: for every human progress, humans will be left behind. What we call “ethical” is a teleological manifestation of a utopian ontology￼: it is the projecting of being upon and “unknown perfection” where everyone is happy and sings it’s a small world after all for eternity. It doesn’t matter whether or not we “believe” in this ethical maxim, because the simple fact of having some sort of ethics toward the idea that everyone should be allowed to live, that we should not kill anyone, relies upon and notion of intentionality which necessarily an automatically kills people that are outside of that intention￼.￼ In other words, modern subjective intentionality is a justification of the individual over the death or exploitation of another￼ That is out of view. There is no escaping this in our modern world, whereas, in the past we still had an ability for a reasonable doubt that that could occur.￼
What Foucault calls ‘the gaze’ is selctive and implicitly avoids the ethical problems of its establishment through knowledge-power.
The gaze, as a means for progress Completely misses the human (body) toll for the sake of its motion of knowledge-power.
However depressing and arousing of revolting ideas, the consolation is that it happens, is happening, and has happened all the time. Ethics itself is a program of selected ignorance: The ideals that ethics forms (as a viewed body) excludes the truth of the existing human (the body itself).
Human activity is based on the Expiration of other bodies, human and nonhuman. Always. Ethics is more a justification, less a prescription for behavior: The behavior is justified by the modern gaze.
So, again, we have the retelling of the ancient story of Arjuna before battle pondering the necessity of killing family members and freinds.
Fortunately, intelligence is also ethically conscripted. Compassion beats fear.
I’ll get shot before I buy a gun; I’m too kind and smart. 😜. I care too much about the well being of others.
It’s kind of sad. In a way…
What is called for is not another reactionary politics. The idea that we need to do some thing “more ethical”, come upon or manifest a better political system, or be ourselves “more ethical in our application of being and doing, Is simply to exclude people that do not agree with that kind of ethics. It is to promote, a search, and demand that all human beings “respect human beings” in a particular fashion, according to a particular belief system￼.￼￼ No. that is the irony of liberal politics: any demand of ethics necessarily confines that ethics to something that is unethical and its application.
Hence, a new type of ethical understanding of what it is to be human is required.
Think about if I am in the military, or, in fact I’ve been watching Star Trek discovery lately; Think about Starfleet, since it is like the most idealized version of cooperation and ethics.
The point here is that people who join Starfleet, or at least the crew of the enterprise and discovery, Volunteered their lives for the sake of this ideal of Starfleet, this ethics.
What is radical about this version of ethics is that it is not modern. Now, I’m not saying we all should aspire to the Star Trek idea; I love Star Trek, but, come on people.
The point is is that the modern version of ethics is contained by a finitude that we define as death. Actually, birth and death. This is also the point that Foucault draws upon. It is not that we get to choose to define lives and situation’s in such away; to make such choices assumes that they have already been made for us. He is talking about an unfolding of consciousness as political/clinical identity￼.￼￼ ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ And I would assert that the post modern idealism which says we all get to choose our own reality, define our own parameters and such, is based in an idealism that is already given to us, which is to say, without the type of critical reflection that this archaeologist is posing.
The radical ethics that I’m talking about with reference to Star Trek discovery and Starfleet, is that death has no foundation beyond the mere idea￼￼. And I would add to this that the enlightenment ideals of freedom arises for the every day human being in the context that we get to choose our allegiances; this is basically the commentary on the nation-state￼. But it is this type of consciousness, One where our allegiance is left to Essential choice (how do we even talk about this idea without foreclosing freedom to nothingness?) ￼￼which brings about the “terrorist extreme ism” that we find going on in the United States in many parts of the world as we speak. ￼
This new type of ethics is very corporate, it is very Inc. It realizes on one hand that our freedom is already determined in the state, that the very system by which we know ourselves implies a space of unknowability that we associate, or that manifests as a consciousness in freedom￼.￼
And it is the irony that is playing out in our moment that will come out on the side of a Starfleet kind of ethics, again, without the idealized reference to some future utopia.
It is simply an unfolding of being human. ￼￼x