The Contradiction in the Imperative

The Mask situation has brought Some interesting philosophical issues and insights.

COVID-19, as largely an entirely random occurrence from the chaos which exists beyond our ever reckoning, is not really the philosophical issue, unless we want to speculate about the various ideological imperatives.

Science arises outside of these ideological imperatives, or rather one could say “on the threshold”, or the borderlands or — I forget the intellectual word…something that starts with an “m”, I think…On the margins, but there is a academic word for that which I’m not bringing to mind right at this moment–  Science arises in our world as half in and half out, seemingly arising from nowhere, yet somehow firmly predicting and describing our real world. At once, making no ontological sense while inscribing to us what is ontologically sure.

Nevertheless…

It is the mask which is the symbol of our time, one could say. Covid, in this way, is just an occasion to mark out a social significance.

I don’t think I am too far off the mark in describing the main issue that developed around the masks but now perpetuated in the wearing of masks is: am I protected?

I think the whole freak out and the whole big thing that arose (arises) around the masks was whether or not I will be protected from getting the novel Covid. (The conspiracy theories arise in frustration of purpose and ignorance of one’s self, I’d say).  And while this is generally ideologically proper to what is human today and now, scientifically what they tell us is that these masks are not protecting me from the virus. This is to say, I am not wearing a mask because I’m trying to protect specifically and only myself from getting the virus. The only time I’m wearing an N 95 mask is when I am having to be in close proximity to people that indeed do have the virus; the reasons to wear an N95 anywhere else verges to almost pathological. Cloth masks are not a barrier to the virus getting into me; I am not wearing my mask to protect me from you. On the contrary; they are a barrier for my saliva and particulates which are carrying the virus from getting out to you.

In other words, The reason I am Wearing masks is to protect you from me, because I could be carrying the virus and not know it, and not showing any symptoms.

I think this sentiment is largely unknown; the reason why most people wear masks is because they think they’re protecting themselves. Whereas, the only way that they’re protecting themselves by wearing a mask is to symbolize and or model to other people that’s socially it’s OK to wear a mask, because if we all wear masks then we are all protecting each other from each other — And we wash our hands and don’t touch our face.  The virus staying alive on surfaces, at least the CDC in the United States says, is not a significant factor in the transmission of Covid. Even though animals and surfaces may have Covid on them, they are not transferred well into our bodies to give us the sickness. The main source we are worried about is transmission and that Has to do from humans to other humans directly. 

*

Now, here is where we get in to philosophy and the imperative.

I am consciously acting, I am consciously wearing a mask for the purpose of protecting you, of protecting other people. I have no concept that I carry within my mind or reasoning that tells me that Covid is going to be prevented from getting in me by wearing a cloth mask; there is nothing about my wearing a cloth mask which involves my knowledge, which makes me feel secure, which makes me feel protected from getting the novel Covid. I mean; It can make me feel protected, of course…

Hence by extension philosophically, one Could say that I do not differentiate things that I do upon a level or unitive ontological platform; i am able to do things socially for different reasons, for example, for my own good consciously, and then for other peoples good consciously, to help myself as opposed to others, or to help others as opposed to myself, but that is not upheld in that I might choose to do one thing altruistically. If I am choosing, then I have really chosen only for my self intrest with what I am able to view as other’s choices.

Indeed in so much as I might have the idea that I am partially protected from wearing a cloth mask from Covid and partially also protecting other people, we might say that I hold on to this unitive platform from which I occur or as which I occur as a subject in the world, as a human being as opposed to the world that I walk upon or in. In this frame I have all sorts of motivations at all sorts of times, from selfish to altruistic whether I’m alone or with other people. Yes.

On the other hand, once I understand that in no way am I wearing a mask to protect my self at all, but only for the sake of protecting someone else from me having the virus unknowingly, which is to say, that I am not having a pretense about other people wearing masks, even though the idea is that if we all wear masks then we are all safe, then I am able to differentiate what is in truth social and what is in truth the activity of myself. In short, AI am able to discern the truth of the matter that rises above relative opinion (that I ought to have chosen be-cause…)

The imperative here is that there is nothing that I am doing for myself socially.  What I am doing for myself socially is ultimately what I am doing for other people. If I choose, then I am choosing for other’s benefit.

Or I am not. Where I might decide wheather what I do is in my intrest or another’s, there am I invested in what Kierkegaard calls the ethical-universal. It is not that I am unable to arise outside of this universe, but that if I do then I exist by an absurdity, which is determined in my choosing, or what is called the choice that cannot be made.

Somehow, This can sound eerily similar to mid 20th century existentialism, but I would say that the difference is that the imperative carries only to the parameter where what is ideologically social stops enforcing its dictates upon what truth is able to be, which by all ethical standards, never happens.

For agency is ideological, but ideology is not informing a total occurrence of being.

The Imperative is irony. What never happens is happening. The question now, is then, can you see it?



x

x

x

Today’s Comprehensive News

Covid-19 corona virus. Corona virus virus corona death money economy Covid corona money jobs. Trump Covid Corona Corona Corona Covid-19. Pandemic Economy Covid corona Covid mental health. Money money jobs jobs social distance Covid-19 lockdown masks.

Cornona virus Covid-19 people death. How long social distance Covid-19 virus virus money economy. Global corona China USA. Covid-19 pandemic virus virus virus Corona.

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s comprehensive news.

Well Then: Life and Death. Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges – Scientific American Blog Network

Comparing COVID-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is like Comparing Apples to Oranges – Scientific American Blog Network
— Read on blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

——————–:::: So, the numbers we were using are perhaps not an accurate comparison. We should have to wait for the scientific rebottling, if there is one. 

Yet I still stand by the questioning upon a human death and a human living death.

How do we compare the saving of X amount of lives who will have otherwise died of coronavirus, compared to X number of lives that are unfathomably changed such that the rest of their lives are (in fact, now, and in the future will be) misery?

Is the most valuable human thing life itself? Why?

I think that is probably the most valid and pertinent question of modern society that we could possibly think of.

It’s like the Trolly Problem, but with actual stakes, that is, stakes that go beyond mere intellectualism. Stakes that go into actually having to make a decision and continue to live your life with it. 

What is the answer?

Does human life hold value above everything else? And: what is your reason for this position?



But again: I’m not saying that we need to get rid of the restrictions or anything like that. I am totally agreeing with the cautionary manner by which we are proceeding back into this new normal,

—-

Some times I just gotta take it the whole way.

🌈

—-

Risk and Covid-19

I’m going to take a risk. This risk that I’m going to take has to do with a view on Covid that is not particularly popular right now. 

I imagine it is very possible that I could get all sorts of hate replies from it and my followers will go from, like, seven down to, like, two.

So first, the disclaimer.

I am in no way mean to devalue any human life, nor to demean or objectify an individuals suffering from sickness or any sort of suffering, nor to reprimand loved ones involved with that person and how they are probably and justifiably upset.

Let me repeat that paragraph. And go back and read it again and take it to heart as to my actual intention, where my view is coming from, before reactions might arise.

*

Here’s a video that I saw on the news earlier today.

Now, in the context of the reported devastation and visceral fear that surrounds most people in our world society, if we are ethical then we watch that video and our fears and emotions are confirmed. We think, “oh my God! That child might die from Covid and the family has no idea where it came from. And humanity is in severe dire straits with this virus! Oh my god that’s terrible and sad. Masks might not be sufficient. Sequestering at home and staying away from loved ones and friends might not be sufficient. This devastating killer disease had made it into a house that was doing everything they were supposed to! COVID-19 is very terrible and I’m so scared and oh my gosh somehow I also feel confirmed in the measures that we are taking, because we are all in this together.”

And we watch the video, and at least on the news it was reported that the kid has fully recovered. And thank God. I’m absolutely happy that this child got over the sickness and didn’t die and I’m very happy for his family.

Consider this:

The last time I had the flu, I had flu A. This was four months ago. I went from a sore throat on Saturday at work, to coming home fatigued and a little bit stuffy headed with a headache and fairly sure that I had a cold. Waking up the next day feeling like shit and by noon on Sunday I took the advice of my wife and I went to the urgent care and I had 103.4 temperature. I felt like absolute hell. I could barely sit up, I actually did drive to the doctors and back home. I had a nagging cough that I could not stop coughing and so that whole night at first night, and even the second night, I barely slept because I couldn’t stop coughing. And by the third day my temperature had gotten down into normal area and all in all I was out of work for I think five days.

My question goes to why are we not posting videos of people when they have the flu?

What virologists and the people who are studying the virus seem to be discovering is that Covid 19 does not have a significantly greater mortality rate than the flu, and likewise generally the same number of people get positive for Covid as they do the flu. I think the difference between the two is the contagion possibility. It’s something like the flu infects 1.5 people per infected person, and Covid infects 3 people per one infected person, or something like that.

If you watch that video that I posted a few before this, made by one of the doctors who is studying Covid globally, he asks the question if all this reactivity, all these precautions that we are putting on society to prevent a sickness that has the same pattern, the same morbidity, the same infection proportion as the flu, is worth all the secondary problems that are arising because of these social precautions.

He talks about many that I’ve already thought about being in the mental health field:

— Alcoholism is the first one that came to mind for me. If someone was yet potentially an alcoholic, who still went to their work and was functional and didn’t drink at work and was otherwise a good parent say, now is not working and is at home with his family members who they don’t really see that often nor have to involve themselves with, and it’s probably been that way for years — now all of a sudden all the family members have to get along under the added stress of no income. Having to deal with each other all day long where as before they had various natural outlets. Now that individual can go get a beer or scotch or whiskey anytime they want to throughout the day. So I thought of how many more alcoholics are going to be created because of these precautions that we’ve put in place. And how is all this alcoholism going to affect the family and society over the next 5,10, or 20 years of these people now attempting to get and stay sober and get back to the productive lives?

The next ones I thought of is

– depression

– suicide

– anxiety

Then:

— spousal abuse and domestic violence.

The doctor in the video points out how Covid will be solved at least in the next year or so,but the victims of domestic violence, the individuals as well as their families are going to be affected for the rest of their lives in a way that Covid will just be a thing that was an interesting phenomenon.

–Child abuse.

Here we have a parent whose ability to parent is based on them not being around their family member for at least a third of the day, not including the third that they’re sleeping also.  The doctor points out That the rate of child abuse is up. How many decades is that child going to have to deal with this short period of time? How much social money, social services, psychological effort is going to go have to go into this child as an adult getting better and hopefully not implementing abuse Upon thier own children?

And then the one that I hadn’t even really thought of that really stuck out to me:

–Child sexual abuse. 

Parents And friends and family members are starting to more frequently abuse the children of their own household sexually.

Why?

I am not making the argument that somehow we should let everything go back to normal, or whatever.

But I am bringing up the very valid question about what trade-offs are we making based on fear and ignorance?

And what about the mom who made that video and posted it? What kind of trauma did she go through and thinking that her child had any more potential of dying then if he would’ve had the flu? Would she have been so nervous if her child had flu a, for example? Would she have entertained the possibility that her child was going to die if it was the flu?



Very interesting, at least: Coronavirus / COVID-19: An assessment of actual global data. With some commentary by a philosopher.

Coronavirus / COVID-19: What Is Really Going On? And Why? Based on Dr. Erickson’s video message, a look behind the scenes at what may be the real …

Coronavirus / COVID-19: What Is Really Going On? And Why?

The Anxiety Produced lifting of lockdown Should be interesting.

apple.news/A0lbgreVIS56KVbfmrAdwgQ

In a way, a good example analogy of a Commodity Fettishism:

The anxiety produced due to the natural-rational impingement upon ones view freedom causes a kind of myopia, perhaps like an addiction, where the criteria informing the choice function is changed. The “rational choice” is now understood to be in line with a reality that, for all purposes by then, has disappeared, replaced by the colors and shapes of anxiety.

Like addiction commandeers the choice function because the choice is always made for the “rational choice” of the need for the substance. As though one is going to die without it.x

Exhibit of Mental Health Compromised by Covid-19 Measures

apple.news/AheduBnEkSHaCcGnkhSGQ9w

This references the video posted on the Huffington article. And the protests in general.

Trump supporters Protest the stay at home orders.

It seems to me the only sensible way to view these protests is through the lens of mental health.

I do not think it is reasonable to say that these people are not intelligent or stupid or to politicize their behavior in anyway. It is not merely that they are Trump supporters; Rather, by not being a leader, Trump is taking advantage of a compromised community. Trump looks for those who are already weak and then takes advantage of them for his own profit. 

The reason why the protesters are behaving this way is because they are emotionally upset and are not able to deal with their emotions in a constructive way.

Of course they are emotionally upset. Of course their lives are being affected in a terrible way due to the virus. Their responses are perfectly reasonable in the sense of being upset and not knowing what to do, and so they act out. They are justifiably angry and scared, yet the coronavirus is an uncontrollable force of nature, and so instead of coming to terms with their relationship to this force and come together with the rest of humanity, They pull back and blame and lash out at what is around them. it’s pretty much a panic response. It is almost a textbook maxim of mental health problems.

They are unable to see the truth of the matter because, One could say and in a manner of speaking, they did not have a good mental hygiene.

 

x

Thank God

images.app.goo.gl/J4EdJrGq2AUbmXnZ6

But, how do we balance the Personal feelings of loss with the larger ethical global benefits?

For, if we value every single human life then it is only ethical to mourn deeply that one person is killed, by whatever means.

Yet, if we were to have our ethical desires, we would eventually have to come to terms with a future that is basically all technology and no nature. Which is totally possible.

It seems we can’t have the best of both worlds. But it does seem that human beings, regardless of the environment, will just view their environment as generically human, which is to say, natural with reference to something that is not natural. 

If we consider the state of our world now compared to 150 years ago, we have to admit that we don’t give one damn shit about it except in as much as we long for some great past goodness.

And I’m sure as our world becomes increasingly less green, and our cities more and more large, we will still have happy families who mourn the loss of someone who dies, say, from some new form of human destruction, or natural destruction for that matter. And these destructions will frame a further human ethical imperative with reference to how it could be or how it could’ve been, in comparison to how terrible our lives on a larger scale really are. All the while still being happy for what we have with no default to some underlying unhappiness.