Idiots Rule

x

The art world, disrupted by crypto: @deankissick on why that’s a sad thing: “The Downward Spiral: Popular Things”
(Plus- Picasso)

“What strip mining is to nature, the art market has become to culture”*…

“What strip mining is to nature, the art market has become to culture”*

The idiots rule: intelligence is what we think it is.

👽 I am an alien.x

👻

On The possibility of Gun Regulation

apple.news/AxIfoM4DxRlyAKaM947_fvw

I wonder if the idea that many Americans uphold about the right to bare arms is becoming a anachronistic ideal in consideration of all the damage and rights abuse or limiting of freedom that can now be accomplished through other means, such as better technology and behavioral and cognitive manipulation through mass digital media and propaganda. At best, it seems, such idealists could hope to accomplish is small local victories of myopic success. For, from the “bigger picture” idealist mindset, one would think that the huge money and focused intelligence toward an ulterior global goal would far out weigh any ability for even 500 thousand, say, people with assault rifles could deter.

Onto-taxonomy and the Object of the Subject

www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/71894/1/SM Vol 17 pp. 27-36 Young.pdf

And…still finding support for the proposal:

https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/vol3/iss2/3/

The irony that never is resolved in the onto-taxonomy proposal itself, is how the content of the argument against an onto-taxonomy is withheld from its own semantic meaning?

I think this is the basic question Harman never deals with. Apparently, humans have a special ability to “withdraw from view”, just as every object has that same ability, but this ability is also exempted or withheld in the intellectual papers which propose the ideal or proposal. How does meaning itself occur precisely and yet withdraw?

In other words, the meaning of the proposal of OOO, namely, that objects withdraw from view, among the extended proposal, is supposed to not withdraw, but rather is proposed in its presentation to be fully present for the purposes of making its point.

It is this situation to which I refer The Two Routes. It concerns the material of the substance of Object Orientation more than its substance itself.

For,

If indeed Triple-O is sound, that is true, then it answers to the two routes.

If it is merely another philosophical proposal, of idealistic argumentative dimentions, then it fails for what it means.

oh?

how fast the world ? As fast as our arrogance.

Futurists from the 20th century predicted that labor saving devices would make leisure abundant. According to the great economist John Maynard Keynes, the big challenge would be that… Rather than…
— Read on medium.com/accelerated-intelligence/google-director-of-engineering-this-is-how-fast-the-world-will-change-in-ten-years-6f1e653b5374

— I am always intrigued when theorists use the word “we” — and a bit skeptical.

I am pretty conscious in my writing when I use “we”. I’m not perfect, though. But I try to use “I” when I cannot be sure I am talking about “us”, and I try to use “we” only when I am talking about an experience of the reader that should have been aroused through the reading. For example; as I make an argument or describe a situation, I will use the “we” to indicate where the reader should be in their conceptualization of matter discussed, as a sort of check in to see if everyone is on board.

The linked post I have to question, simply because it is obvious to me that the “we” he is writing about does not include me.

Much of what he assumes in the “we accelerating”, the symptoms and reactions/responses, I have not, nor do I experience. I understand that many people can relate to what he is saying — I do understand that people can identify with his panic, yes, but the way he is saying it sounds like he is overextending the experience of being human, as well then, overextending the possibility of what he sees as so terrible.

He is actually talking about “them”.

It is for those he is talking about, and that reality they live in, that brings me to have compassion for those poor souls.

I just can’t help but feel for them because it seems that they have been sold a bill of goods, and it feels better about it is they look around as see “us”.

But they are really only seeing what they are able to see.

It is “us” in so much as they might hope, but it is really “them” who are, supposedly, going to suffer from this ideological acceleration.

This is why I feel it is my responsibility to help people.

*

From my vantage point, everything is changing all the time and at the same rate. Hence, the view upon the world is a particularly cosmological view, an incorporated view which sees in the events of the world a correspondence with what is being felt, as these emotions inform his one is able to think about themselves and the world.

It is not therefore ‘the world’ or society that these people are talking about; rather, it is thier own sense of Being. In the same way as certain congregations of institutional religions throughout history have seen that the world is going to end in various ways and according to various evidences and proofs, so it is with the ideal of acceleration.

It is individual ontological perception, not existential foundation

Every generation has its reasons for the shittiness. That’s what being a modern human is.

*.

We are Only gonna die From our own arrogance

Means

That it is The arrogance itself which sets up a system of knowing which perpetually “kills itself” as its own ideological teleology.

How could hell be any worse than to live in a self-reflected world that you see as The Real world ?

…Maybe read some Slavoj Zizek.x

Repost: A Bible Before the Bible?. In 1883, a strange manuscript was… | by Jonathan Poletti | 𝘽𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 | Mar, 2021 | Medium

There’s been a nagging problem of an apparently ancient scroll that surfaced in 1883. In a scene full of religious anxiety, it was declared a ‘forgery’ — and lost. He had a good reputation, though he…
— Read on medium.com/belover/the-bible-before-the-bible-f997a5f7a5a6

The Old and the New: Either{either/or} or And

Let me add a few more insights from my last post. I know I said I won’t talk about gender pronouns anymore, but it is actually very interesting. The …

Random Thoughts #4: Psychoanalytic Thoughts on Gender Identity and Sexual Difference

—- The theoretical society loves the status quo. Usually the way this status quo is maintained is through ideological reiteration, this is to say that all the contexts are replayed into new contexts as if the iteration is moving us forward out of old context, all the while repeating the same context.

*

Lately I came across the notion of variance as a way to begin to talk about what is actually occurring, as opposed to talk about what is still being maintained. Coincidentally, I came across a paper, and a Number of authors who are beginning to incorporate the concept of variance into critical ontological estimation.

While these papers generally locate themselves under the heading of “new materialism”, I myself tend to approach from a real object ontology of substance, which, somewhat ironically, some of the new materialists are altering their own conversation toward a view where substance precedes or grounds matter.

*

It is very possible, and appears historically consistent, to see that the idea of psychology came out of a kind of misinterpretation, what was 200 years ago more understood as the substantial and direct manner of coming to the truth of things in reality: The idea, amd it’s methodological correlate, idealism (empiricism, phenomenalism and most -isms are at thier root idealist).

Limited in overt ways to peer into the truth of reality, 200+ year old man used the most reliable instrument he had : Reason. Reason was more reliable than any of the instruments they had otherwise. And so the whole system of self reflecting through reason was generated into an institutional ideology and translated into what they were loosely calling at the time science. (See Foucault but also the critiques of his ideas.)

Nowadays, we tend to think that just because a word sounds the same and because we use the same word, the same meaning is transferred through time unaltered. .This is so much the case that even as we might find in historical analysis an alteration of the word, we still implicitly understand our contemporary and current use of the word as the meaning that must have been implied at all the times.

What I mean to implicate is that psychology itself still reflects upon the human being through its original idealism that was accompanied by 19th-century philosophy.

I’m not necessarily saying that it is wrong, but I am saying that if we take current knowledge as indeed current knowledge, which is to say at all times generating a type of newness that is not reflected from history, but indeed can account for historical change as the present is the manifestation of that change at all times, it is not then very difficult to see, in contrast to psychoanalysis, a “psychology” evident now that diverges with a greater fidelity to the truth from the old historical idealism which informed what psychology once was. Such a divergence is reckoned in the new materialism as concerning variance between states, disjunctures in ontological reckoning which cannot be properly reconciled to a further unitive or ‘smooth’ transitioning of a single measure.

Such variance can carry into other areas, such as semantics, so that then the smooth unity which is usually conveyed by the word semantic (for example: everyone makes meaning) and the conventional ontological assertions, itself only references one domain of meaningful register. Similar to how constraints of gravity determine viable living structures only to a certain domain or scale within a parameter of variance, such that insects and microbes no longer adhere to those gravitational constraints, we then must admit to a kind of pluralism as knowledge that does not imply a further unitive domain of a unitive ‘knowledge’; for, that implication of knowing — a single domain of knowledge — itself occurs within a further disjunction, scalable, or meaningful, only within its own domain where meaning is universally human and accessible by everyone through the, again, common discourse or what we call communication.

*

The conventional estimation of Psychoanalysis has become more food for Philosophy than it is a real substance upon which Philosophy should find itself. Similarly consistent, the philosophical use of the close reading of Psychoanalysis shows itself as having little to do, anymore, with the actual psyche it supposed to be analyzing. Quite contrary to what it presupposes, such anachronistic misappropriations of Psychoanalysis work in reverse to reify a kind of religious cosmology. Less about what human consciousness is as what it is actually doing as it is evidenced, and more about a certain kind of idea which argues itself and its way of viewing over actuality; in as much as we attempt to retain an ability for a close traditional methodological reading, Psychoanalysis is an anachronistic manner of thinking that holds to manifest basically theological ideals about mentality today.

Tradition and semantic lineage is indeed sufficient to enforce a type of thinking and a way of coming up on the world that is consistent with itself, which is to say, enjoined with a Faith by which the evidence of actuality is distorted, blurred, and moves to conjure an ever-presence of the past in a present in the place of the actuality of the changing present.

*

The short comment upon the link is: it holds little water to the actuality of the situation because it is based in an ideal mapping of actuality to theological dimension.x

Terrible Commodification of Huffington Hype: The Racist Misogyny Of The Atlanta Spa Shootings | HuffPost

The Racist Misogyny Of The Atlanta Spa Shootings | HuffPost
— Read on m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6052478cc5b6264a8fb8e58b

—– I am all about social justice. But this is just Terrible piece of journalism, and cites a kind a feminism which has weak theoretical backing. It is hate guised in justice. Pure commercial news with profit seeking motive. Terrible. 

If it was white women or Latinas who are known for giving “happy endings” at massage parlors, it would have been white and Latin women who were killed.

At best, it is a sexual problem of mental health dimensions, albeit yes a kind of misogyny, but one which is biologically based, I’d say, which has indeed informed the systemic oppression of women historically, yes. And maybe by extension the massage parlors which has been historically institutionalized by the Asian community, as a sort of front, where behind the scenes clients are giving “happy endings” of a sexual nature — yes, maybe there is some racial component there. But To try and merge deaths with the conversation of racial injustice in America and racism, I think that is blurring the issue and weakening the overall call for systemic change.. It is presenting a contrast between human agency and racial presentation as an essential component of being human, again, disguised by the trope of racial oppression. Basically, a poor activity of journalism, barely even disguised for its money making agenda. 

The point of social justice is not to get back and retaliate at the historical reiteration of inequity, like the article poses implicitly; on the contrary, equity and social justice is to bring to light and think critically about our own role in the maintenance of oppressive systems.

If the dude is telling the truth, then at best he has a mental issue around sex. The press and others are just then just using the coincidence of the Asian company and the even as a means to put Asian racism in the spotlight. For sure, there is racism in every corner, but perhaps not what motivated this murderer. That is, unless we are going to put us all under the microscope of being manipulated by systemic coercion, which is not what the analysis of race relations nor is institutional critique is about.x

Violence against women by men is a systemic reaction: an act by men who are unable to see human beings who do not adhere to their own sense of righteousness as human beings. And women are an easy scapegoat for this inability of men.