Reposting How To Save…the world?

“The function all expressions of contempt have in common is the defence against unwanted feelings.” – Alice Miller I read something the other day …

How To Save Democracy

—- very thought-provoking. The content, but also that there is 200 likes.

It is a compelling argument, and very psycho analytical, to say that it all comes down to our parents. We could fix society and indeed democracy if we could just face and come to terms with the issues that are parents essentially instilled in us, whether intentionally, incidentally or otherwise.

As well, it is very interesting that there’s 200 likes for this post. Of course, it could just be that this guy has a lot of followers, but then as well it goes to support the idea that many people feel that there is some sort of individual that is themselves that own or otherwise is manifested by a psyche that is affected by developmental procedures that parents most directly are involved with. Yes, it is a very common psychological approach that began with at least Freud.

It’s a very common approach to understanding cause , but it doesn’t go very far into how we should deal with it. 

I think it is a deceivingly simple idea which pervades modern people in our society. The idea that “if we could just…” Then that confronting of issues would go along way into improving society.

As an example of the faulty reasoning behind, perhaps this post, but at least the books authors proposal: just because I might know what caused me to get a flat tire, doesn’t mean I know how to get back on the road. The cause of the flat tire doesn’t really help me to fix the tire. Such Knowledge could contribute to how I might go about fixing the tire, for example, pull out the nail. As well, it might inform me about what I should or should not do in the future to avoid getting a flat tire. Overall, though, knowing the cause of the problem doesn’t help me to find a solution to the problem.

It is interesting that such an anachronistic belief in individualism and secularism still pervade common knowledge today. As if psychology holds all the marbles for what goes on with the individual, and as if mental health can only be addressed by psychology.

It indicates a sort of sad myopia that most people who consider themselves intelligent are involved with.

For, all one would have to do is instead of reading the pop-psychology, step over and actually use their brains a little bit and read some philosophy and critical theory. There is well-known evidence in academia and in intellectual sectors that do not see psychology as a domain which pervades over all other domains are, and evidence which suggests that it is not merely the parents which influence thebchildren in these particular ways, rather, it is Society. which is affecting parents which then move to affect children.

A more effective kind of analysis actually takes a little bit more responsibility than saying “we need to confront” or “if we could just” type of thinking. It is this responsibility that begins to see systemic oppression at work, and popular psychology indeed –in a way evidenced by such popularity of this kind of approach to what is going on with the individual –supporting the systemic oppression.

Along these lines then we could even say “if we could just” get people to look at what’s actually occurring, instead of just gobbling up and consuming tastefully concocted psychological spreads on their organic wheat bread and grass raised cows.

Lol. Sorry, my attitude is showing. 😝

For sure, we need to approach people where they’re at and begin to ask them to ponder and reflect and to think about things in the way that they are able to think about things.

However, I think that it is therapeutically irresponsible to allow those people to stay there as if that small reflection is all that needs to be done in order to change themselves or even approach to be able to changing our country or the world.

Of course we need to start with popular psychology. But it is just catering to ignorance to let people think that that is the whole solution.

What does it mean to start within oneself?

Why do we need to confront anything there?

It may well be that all we need to do is deal with what is actually occurring.

Now. 



Yes; unconditional love for our children, but then how do we instill discipline in them without also imposing trauma?

How do I even begin to approach my issues while I’m simultaneously attempting to raise a child and insulate them from those issues?

There is reason to believe that even as I might be confronting my issues that are inside of me, I am further implementing a trauma that is occurring within me in confronting those issues, that’s aggravating the problem all together under the intention of love.

What are we to do? 

*
*
I think it could be that I’m just jealous that I can’t get 200 likes on any post 👽.

I ponder what I would need to change in order to get more than 60 likes. I’m sure some of it is just the content; most people don’t really enjoy thinking too much about things. And my blog is really about the reader confronting oneself. My posts are just an occasion, they are just an instrument of reflection.

So really what I’m pondering is how could I maintain the integrity of such a venture and reach proportionally more people such that I would get 200 likes ?

To the things themselves

I am finally diving into Levi Bryant’s “Democracy of Objects”, and I gotta say, I do not know why I hadn’t looked At this sooner.

http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/the-democracy-of-objects/

This is not a big post; I was only reminded of my position:

It is due to the current correlational episteme — not in spite of — that we have access to objects in-themselves that are not for human thought. It is due to the ubiquity of thought that we can know the object outside of human subjectivity, perception, language, etc…

The object ontologists all stake thier claim in one way or another upon correlationalism; basically that we can know of objects that exist outside of thought, or outside of the phenomenal thinker.

Again: My point is it is due to the total inclusivity of thought that we are thus able to have knowlegde of objects in themselves — contra Kant and others who pose this condition as leaving the object as a moot point, totally removed from consideration.

X

X

Zizek’s Activist Irony.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-hillary-clinton-populist-right-left-democratic-party-civil-war-a8975121.html%3famp

Cedric Nathaniel wrote in his book “the philosophical hack” that is Zizek rides the line of contradiction, which is to say, he follows the road not taken that is determined by contradiction as opposed to that path which opens up possibility by rejection of contradiction.

And here is the perfect case in point so far: he has apparently taken an active role instead of sort of just sitting back and being a political/social commentator/philosopher. But of course he’s always making opinions like this; but it seems that this one having to do with Trump really hits home.

For a long time Zizek has been telling us and every opportunity that Trump is the solution, that Hillary Clinton is the problem. But what he means by this is ironic in the sense that he is not talking about a solution to specific politicized issues; rather, he is talking about our American democratic systemic ideological woes.

Basically what he saying is that the system is fucked and the only solution to repairing it is to elect Donald Trump, but because what it will achieve is a restructuring of an effective Left — not because Trump is some sort of American savior or some super great leader. On the contrary, It is because he is a reflection of everything that the left has been trying to deny of itself. The exposure of what it’s trying to deny achieved by the election of Donald Trump will best lead to a restructuring, a “civil war” as some people have put it, within the Democratic Party itself.

So his activism was actually irony in its fullest sense, in its intentional sense, and this is why Slavoj Zizek is the Elvis of critical theory.

Block politicians on social media.

Perhaps we will learn from our current administration here in the US the amount of chaos and general BS that can arise from a president being able to use social media platforms as he wishes.

Perhaps we might have an intelligence and a motivation to make a law that if you are the president of the United States or a member of Congress that you are not allowed to use Twitter or Facebook or any of those kind of social media while you are in office.

I’m sure that texting would be sufficient for anyone needing to communicate anything important to their friends and family.

Part of this opinion stems from the idea that transparency in government could be an ideological posture more than it is a necessary tenant of democracy. Already our modern democracy is a distortion of “true democracy”, so it can appear that the ideal of transparency is able to occur more as a tactical manipulation of the politicians over the ‘good’ that transpires up from The Represented.

We might begin to see that what we want to mold together and conflate into Democracy could be a belief that misses the facts of what occurs in broad daylight, the ideal posture seeing only what it wants to see for the sake of the ideal ‘free subject’.