The Irony of Modern deferment

Overheard of two people while waiting in line to buy groceries.

“The actuality of a situation is beyond anyone’s ability to be ethical.”

“That’s right. I pay someone through taxes and school fees to deal with the greater problems of the world. Right now I have a career to advance.”

—————————-

When you think about it, You are really the only one thinking about it, you and then a few other people who like to think about things. when you think about all the other people you encounter that you don’t talk about these things to, probably a minuscule number of those people would have any interest at all, let alone the capacity to comprehend what you might be talking about.

That little conversation got me thinking about what I’m thinking about, and how what my little group of friends might be talking about, can’t really be addressing what we think we’re talking about.

And the reason is very philosophical. The challenge is this: Think of a scenario in a closed system or something in that closed system, some thing that came up only Due to that close system, by the mechanisms contained entirely and functioning within that closed system…

…Ponder how anyone of those elements would be able to do anything that isn’t inherently involved with all the other things in that closed system.

And this is to say, not that I am inherently involved with manifesting my own world including my involvement with other people and things.

Rather, it’s more to really think about what is actually happening when I think that is the case.

The facts of the matter is that— I don’t know, is there 4 billion people in the world?

4 billion things of a closed system only an incredibly tiny proportion of those 4 billion things that are supposed to be in intimate communication with one another, Let alone the multitude of other things that are in this closed system that somehow are “inanimate”, inert”, or “neutral”— that are attempting to address the problems that appear in this closed system.

It wouldn’t even be proper to say that human beings are just coming up with models of the universe, because again, that’s Just a minuscule amount of people that are Supposing to grasp the extents of the system for the sake of all the other multitude of constituents who are not addressing the system for its problems.

But then on the other side of it, to suggest

that it’s a closed system, if indeed it is, then we would have to say that all these other Constituents of the system must be addressing the problems of the system itself but in their own way, such that the small minority of great thinkers are really doing nothing more than solving their own problems in their own way, and are not really addressing problems to the whole of constituency of this closed system.

Further, we could not even say that as individuals we are addressing parts. For, the same conditions would apply, but with a post modern bent; that is, how could we possibly even be communicating with each other what these parts are to disassemble their meaning to the extent of the clothed system?

Hence, anyway we look at it we must assume, nay, we must realize at some point that something else is going on.

But more so, we would have to look at the very method by which we are attempting to address the universe and existence and the people around us and our environment.

If we are honest about addressing these problems, then we would have to indict the very method that we are going about conceptualizing the whole thing.

When we look around and have to live our day today, we have to go to work, we have to actually apply ourselves to very practical and immediate real circumstances, we then would have to realize that Philosophy. splits into two things: One which has to do with how we negotiate the real world, and the other one that Hass to do with how we actually exist truly in the universe.

Stiegler’s Faux-pas?

I have been chipping away very slowly at Stiegler’s Negathropocene.

And here is a paragraph from the end of Part 2 in the book that I thought encompasses, what we might call, a faux pas in reckoning.  Similar to Lacan’s mistake , i’m calling this author’s mistake a faux pas because it seems to me that his mistake he could not help because of his investment in the ubiquity of the social criterion, or so it appears.

In particular I bring out to relief his suggestion that what is required is a change in the theory of value.

what I am calling a faux pas in the context of his proposal is the same type of error that is indicated in Lyotard’s “The differend“, and elaborated on in “ThePost modern condition”.

So It is interesting to me that just prior to this posted paragraph the author comments how he attempts to show where Lyotard’s condition Is insufficient. My answer before I even read his piece is, “of course it’s insufficient because from your position you are required to argue a denial of the situation at hand”, which I have discussed in other posts of mine.

I submit, that if we understand what Zizek has described as “A change in how we reckon change” as an indication of the same requirement that Stiegler is talking about, then he (S) would have to first give us a disclaimer about how what he is writing about a change in the theory of value is not already invested in the very value that is attempting to change by the submission of this essay. Without it, That is called duplicity. Often we have an example of why these theoreticians who are so invested in the social equation and the phenomenological involvement of subjects actually serve to function the perpetuation of the theory of value that they would so hope to change through their use of discourse.

*

The question that haunts every modern philosophical text is whether it embodies and thus accounts for this odd incongruence. It is the incongruity that shows up in the lacuna between Hegel and Kierkegaard, As well as Kant and Wittgenstein.

*

When we get beyond the either/or of quick subjective assertion (I want to be heard! And seen! ) then the political realm garners a more appropriate response. Such reply then has little to do with value as an issue, for the adversary is understood as and inherent part of the struggle. It becomes less an effort of attempt to rid or dispel the adversary and more about changing the relationship. A theory of value is that which is inherently changed by virtue of the fact that the real relationship is changed.  Thus does not occur in politics (the ethical universe), and thus the political effort of argumentation does very little to change the theory of value (see Kierkegaard). But again, this is not an either/or statement (Kierkegaard was caught in his historical moment: hence his despair). It is not suggesting that a person somehow becomes or refrains or steps outside of the political sphere;!rather, the individual’s orientation upon that arena has changed implicitly.

*

This condition should be what Stiegler stands upon. In this sense, the “macro-economic” reorganization does hint at a recognition, but I think the either/or might have him by the bit, which then leads him in a circle, or maybe and ellipse.

So it seems that Stiegler is arguing the condition that must be brought about by his discussion, and so moves beyond Dasein in as much as he must argue history and society already in the motion of getting beyond: negentropy: which sounds suspiciously Similar to what he is arguing that he is stepping beyond, or that we have stepped beyond. He begins to sound startlingly similar to a child singing in the dark instead of flipping the light switch which she knows lay just in reach on the wall.

I am not sure his historical argument is quite sound beyond the mere words.

But I will read on, and i will report later upon my progress through his book, and I will reflect upon whether or not I was incorrect in this initial assessment of mine.

The Anthropocene and the possibility of a future: The end of globalization? The questionable paradox of multicultural homogenized non-places

Part 2. The end of globalization? The questionable paradox of multicultural homogenized non-places

https://djehoety.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/part-2-the-end-of-globalization-the-questionable-paradox-of-multicultural-homogenized-non-places/
— Read on djehoety.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/part-2-the-end-of-globalization-the-questionable-paradox-of-multicultural-homogenized-non-places/

My comment:

I don’t think that is necessarily bad. If you think, perhaps, globalization as of the spreading of sameness, likewise it allows human beings to identify themselves as a common sort. I no longer, Or at least, I have less observable substance upon which to Orientalize towards a sort of uncivilized other Ness. I can begin to recognize myself in the face of the other, because I’m no longer distracted by the different environment that they live in, as though they are identical with their environment in their “alien Ness”.

Then further, once the human being becomes the globe, becomes the reflection of the globe, it would seem there’s only two options left by which to find other-Ness, which is to say, to consolidate that identity which is human, rather than that identity which is European or Asian or Islamic or Christian or atheist, or primitive or civilized or intelligent. These would become more substance of subsequence, rather than substance of primacy.

The two spaces of otherness then could be really actual “outer space”, which would include the depths of the earth and the oceans, but also that space outside of the earth, such as the planets in the stars and everything.

The Anthropocene takes on new meaning because the human being is now the globe, the surface of the globe which it sees as it’s self, reflection of itself. It can no longer avoid looking at self, and in fact must go inside itself, so to speak, or distinctly outside.

No longer do we have this gray zone phenomenological uncertainty and nothingness.

We have distinctly that which is going on inside, how consciousness operates, and we have that which is distinctly outside, how the universe or how physics operates the planets, atoms, molecules, life systems etc.

Some Philosophy and Art, and some philosophical art: The Anthopocene, Black Holes and theoretical blank spots.

While we posit about some conceptual ‘black hole’ of the anthropocene, in many cases, even the authors themselves will miss the blank spot and not grasp what they are talking about even while their view is fully informed.
Below is a cool article. But, I can’t help but wonder how much (mistaken) postmodern approach goes into this kind of research; it appears to me that some “terms have been changed to maintain the anonymity of the theory”. As if “the similarity of the structural semantics are purely coincidental”. But we will get into that later; maybe you might like a primer for the pocket veto

Here is a cool tune that is philosophical as much as it is artistic, an I think it not only goes good with the essay below philosophically, but it also makes for good background music while you read it.

Originally posted on Institute for Interdisciplinary Research into the Anthropocene: Preamble This paper focuses on dark-theory, and explains the Anthropocene through such dark theory. It addresses a major problematic for contemporary theory; i.e., it is not dark enough. In terms of the current environmental, social and cultural situation, we are faced with a singularity, which…


via Black Sun: The singularity at the heart of the Anthropocene — synthetic zerø