One of the most Important Questions Of our day: How Much is too Much?

I know this question is heresy for the traditionalist Westerners, but it is nevertheless a question we need start to address:

How much money does a person need to make to be happy?

Is there an ethical standard that requires those who have accumulated vast amounts of money to give back to the economic system and its constituents that has allowed them such power?

…An ethical standard that requires such benefactors to yield at least some of their money for the benefit of what we collectively call ‘our world’?

Is there a mental standard of the same? A standard for sanity?

Can we be justified as deeming insane a person who demands more than X-amount of money to be happy and content ?

We can no longer afford to have faith in the transcendent hand of freedom. We must begin to ask these hard questions.

Does the capacity to make a tremendous amount of money equate to a right to control the world?

How ‘bout instead of nervous liberal-conservatism…

…how bout we grow some balls. How about we have some critical self reflection on who we are as valid ethical- global beings, or “nation-Being” as the case may be.

how about we get out of the nervous capitalistic wealth =power U.S. self righteousness and insecurity cast out on what the world is supposed to do; how about we absorb the contradiction and go down to Honduras, for example, and kick someone’s ass, so regular people can go about thier lives?

This “democratic-republican” self-righteous ideal of the United State seems to be failing, when we consider we supposed to be “Christian/liberal values”. Defending our boarder could be seen as a weak move of blaming others for our problem; a kind of projection. A kind of “you take care of your own shit” while we do nothing to take care of our own shit. Perhaps we pull our numb head out of our asses.

Why dont we just own it instead of playing the United States Of ironic Victimhood, and go kill a bunch of people for the purpose of allowing the rest to prosper in their own land?

Just a thought.

I realize this goes against the contradiction inherent in modern nationalistic liberal-conservative ethics. (Love everyone; but have borders)

But really ? We’re gonna allow national sovereignty to a nation that has no control over its own governance for a peaceful existence of its citizens. Do we walk the walk of ethics or just say what we need to to make lots of money for a few greedy fuckheads.

Let’s get over our Korean-Vietnam nervous trauma. Let get over our modern ‘can’t we all get along’ and grow some balls back. We can be our liberal – conservative ethical selves and still exert a strong presence in the world. This doesn’t mean we have to have fucked up walls around our borders, but it could mean that we actually go into countries and we say fuck you you’re an asshole and then we just make them stop being an asshole. At least try. Right now we’re kind of like you’re an asshole but I’m going to stand at the edge of the playground and let you be an asshole out there. Maybe we grow some balls again and we say no we want the playground where everyone gets to play and be happy and you’re the one asshole who fucking everything up and so we’re gonna kick your ass and make you stand around the fence.

Pondering ‘ethics’.

• Ethics anyone?

– Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
– Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[1]
1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.

The question has to be to what extent does a consideration of ethics as a category move to inscribe how people actually occur?

Am I ethical in a way that can be quantified such that I exist “un-ethically”?

Ethics in this way answers to a already-occurring normative arena, one in which the behavior of people may be discerned, but also one in which, at some point, invalidates itself due to the mode by which it operates as a category to be considered.
We are no longer talking about what is common human. A common humanity exists for the purpose of maintaining the problem(s) of the human being, further, for the purpose of maintains a particular power structure, which means, a particular resource-base we call, in general, “reality”. For our question here, behavior is not an element. Rather, behavior re-inscribes the mode of inquiry of ethics redundantly back into the validity of the query itself, without ever answering the question of what ethics is actually addressing.

I submit that the object of ethics is ultimately a real element, but never functions to solve the problem it poses inherently for itself. It is an exercise of creating excess, which is, for another word, capital. Capital functions to supply a real and functional manner to serve some people, while giving most people the teleological justification for their (personally cognized) faulty being; that is, a manner to be able to understand that their faulty being is the best possible given the current condition (always-problem).
The point here is that never do I consider these deep philosophical questions as I am going about my day. In fact, they are so useless to me that they are best categorized as an extraneous luxury. Only in the particular moment of consideration philosophical ethics do I suppose that I am pondering deep human conditions. But in fact, there is nothing about the consideration of ethics which goes into my living of life except in as much as I might think that it does. No one is ‘ethical’ due to philosophical conclusions that may come about through the logical pondering of learned people, or even myself. I do. It contemplate logical conclusions to various options; the options are already located within my ability to cognate outcomes. Choice thus is already a aspect of a parameter that I enact toward a particular outcome even while the part that is choosing either identifies with the choice, or stands back as an interested observer; the philosophical consideration of ethics is thus a move to confine and control, over a mere neutral consideration, what is going to happen or already occurring. What is already occurring is assumed in the question of ethics, and this assumption is based in a particular manner of coming upon the world and human activity.

Yet the fact remains that there are people who do indeed consider the study of ethics to be a great importance; so it is. Hence, we have suddenly come up a division in the category of human being. One that supposes as it proposes to be speaking of how individual people occur in the world, and one that understands that the formal study of ethics is merely an exercise in critical thinking, of utter transcendental and speculative basis, having no relevance to what a person actually does in the world, that is, except as they are invested in identity capital; we should understand, then, that this does not negate nor imply that we should divest ourselves from such identity, but only that we should recognize that the institution of capital sees the human being as a total commodity. The point is that there is something going on that this Capitalistic reality will not recognize and thus it work s to negate it.
The practical application of such theoretical ethical pondering thus speaks to a particular center of power; for, the question would ultimately arise of how it is that I might behave outside of such (capitalistic/identity) philosophical concerns. The answer is that the philosophical concern proposes and asserts its power by the automatic assumption of a common human sort, by which I am thereby merely living in a fantasy. The stalemate involved in this confrontation , then, thus is won only through the implied assertion of power, since there is no rational argument that can be made which would be able to decide which fantasy is ‘actually’ a delusion. Or, more precisely, only within a establishment of what is proper to argument may we rationally come up with a basis by which we may determine what is fantasy. Then, due to this fact, we inevitably must admit that what is fantastical in this latter regard is at least equally true and only been deemed improper to what is occurring for the maintenance of the category we know as ‘real’. Indeed; the ‘ethical’ argument would not be able to admit that this is a rational and valid argument, that indeed it functions truthfully regardless of the ethical ramifications.

For example: What is ‘good’?

It is nothing.

There is no idea of ‘goodness’ that informs my decision until I have a quandary about it. But philosophy does nothing to give me an answer unless I already feel that I am ‘attached’ to that resource as indeed a way to choose. Then, it may have something to do with ‘my’ ethics, but definitely not someone who couldn’t care less about what all the philosophers say. The philosophers thus really say nothing about what that person is doing, as I do not either. But psychology may have something to say.

It is more psychological than philosophical, because at no time do I even feel a need to contemplate such philosophical flow charts.

and what about culture? Still nothing. Because I can stand back and see this group says this. And that group says that. I have no ethics but that which brings ‘ethical groups’ together. I have no ‘good’ until someone asks me, and the I discuss with them what could be correct for the situation.


Buy this time is the essay, I am sure there will be a number of responses brewing. From “this guy is not a scholar/has not read the authors” to “is he really making an argument against ethics?”

My answer is

1) whether or not a person has read the authors/material is not the issue. I grant everything any author has to say about ethics as either applicable to reality or not, and to various degrees true and false of real estimations.

2) No. I am not making an argument against ethics, that is, that we are not ethical creatures.

I am pointing out how such a category ‘ethics’ is only applicable within a certain horizon that we call ‘reality’, but that once the general philosophical issues are sorted out for what they are, over what they argue, then we are able to understand that ‘ethics’ as a philosophical category that is still considered and proposed upon, the authors and the material, has ‘drawn unto itself’ what it proper, but has thereby left and open sore that is merely denies.

We might begin to understand traditional philosophical material less with reference to what they argue, and more concerning what they are doing, what they are as universal objects themselves over the ideas of a central human thinker. We might be able to then begin to formulate a description of humanity that falls outside of the Modern Inspired Agent of Transcendence, to be able to use that agent for different ends despite the intension that allows him into his real faith. His intention will necessarily fall in line to a teleology that is not recognizable to her ontological foundations.


Damn. That is balls trippy.


The Postmodern Ethical Dilemma.

When we look at what Philosophy does through history, we might see that it is a more complicit role than a activist role. Philosophies of activism are necessarily divisional, so we can understand why philosophy appears more complicit.

When we attempt to situate ethics in such complicitphilosophies, we may find that there has been an infatuation with how to ground ethics. Despite what traditional lineage we might posit for thousands of years, it is possible to find in more local features problems of manifestations involved with transcendence and immenence.  In short; in one moment philosophy attempts to ground ethics in an absolute transcendence with momentary or event ruptures in the fabric of experience and existence, what we call in religion “prophetic” but intuition nonetheless and even inspiration, and then in another moment, which more closely can be associated with our postmodern moment, The concern becomes imminence , as a kind of total being or entire experience justified in itself. The problem with these kind of polemics is that they are really religious postures. The only way to argue against this is to remove oneself from the object of thought; basically the only way to argue against that the philosophical concepts however constructed, of transcendence and immenence, are theological ideals is to argue ones ground and transcendence or imminence. 

The problem with these debates is that ethics never finds a ground; rather the ground is currently theoretical and thus religious. It always passes it’s a good against a bad a me against you an us and them. 

So it is here that we find the problem with postmodern ethics. The very nature of postmodernity is human inclusion and the attempt to re-join or incorporate what is other into the state (of being). This is why it has become so difficult to separate out liberal relativity, human equality, cultural relativism and Generalinclusion from having a definite and ethical position on things. This is because when we stick to the postmodern conclusion, and it is a conclusion and end a no exit a futility a nihilism, we find that we’re perpetually opening ourselves up to the possibility of this other and what they might believe in with their ethical conclusions might be that it is almost like some sort of ethical mandate that I am not allowed to have my own definite ethics upon any situation. And this is because I’m always considering what the other person might think; I grow afraid to posit my ethical definitions for fear of being labelled a racist or a bigot or sexist or any of the -ists and – isms that people so often come up with to define how someone is ethically incorrect by asserting their ethics. Because of our ‘liberal deconstruction’ even the term ‘racism’ has become virtually meaningless. What about just plain ‘we do not tolerate your ignorance based hate and violence anymore’. Does that mean anything? I’m not sure it does. 

It is well known nowadays that the often the postmodern ideal is really just mushy accusation of guilt imposed upon another person for not being ‘inclusive’ or “tolerant”.  The problem is is that postmodernism has argued itself into a relativity of terms that it is almost as if the very idea of inclusion and tolerance have no meaning. This is why we find nowadays people saying that the liberal left has gone all the way around the spectrum and now is appearing as if they are conservative right.  For example the ridiculousness up in Evergreen Washington, where a tradition of racial inclusion finally developed into an ethically institutionalizedactivity of racial Exclusion, such that a professor who didn’t want to participate found himself the object of what we could call radically insane and buyersethical norms, The very thing that this professor if not the school itself was trying to educate people against.

At some point we need to get over that human inclusion means that we can’t ethically condemn certain practises that are based in an obvious educational void, and obvious lacking of what we should surely call intelligence. 

And I mean this in response to the Charlottesville incident. Our president is using the wishy-washy postmodern relativity as a means to hedges bets for future voters. He himself may not be an ideological racist but he is definitely the De facto racist by abusing philosophical Rhetoric that really is a distortion of what postmodernity is really means.

The same way , I had a small discussion with somebody about how popular culture usurps and commandeers the meaning of terms, for example “meme” and “radical”, we are leading our country become unethical in the spirit of America, which is to say the principle of human inclusion. We do not have to ride this out and tolerate hate and violence just because were seeing those ethical expressions within the context of our ethical wish wash. 

At some point we need to pull ourselves out of our politically correct postmodern enlightened asses and decide if the ethics that we actually talk about we really mean in a true human sense. 

Because the real postmodern/liberal/tolerant position is one that says “I am going to hang onto my ethical position of tolerance and I am going to allow you to enact violent and speak violently and hatefully about other human beings because God will provide and it will all turn out for the good”. This is exactly the attitude that brought the possibility of someone like Trump being elected. God provided exactly what was contrary to ethical humanity. It is exactly the postmodern ideal that somehow the words we use create our reality that have allowed us to void the fact that we’re just sitting back and waiting for God to provide. Well he did provide; any provided us the conditions to pull our heads out of our assholes. Lol. 

Reality, Naivety and Addiction; Part 2: Google and the failure of communication.

(Note: These posts refer to Slovoj Zizek’s talk he did in Spain a few months ago; this one:


This ‘post-traumatic world’ that might exist in a utopian dream, if it were not for the naïve subject who is able to have a view where by hope can reside, does not occur within the Symbolic and Imaginary frames; or rather, such a utopia is possible as a political empiricality within such effective frames. Where the ‘post-carnival’ state is possible, there do we find what is ‘the carnival’ itself, the moment wherein things are not what they seem and indeed shift and change in the single view. This is what Zizek (Lacan) calls ‘the impossible’, or, the Real order. The manner by which we make sense of what is impossible is called, for Zizek, psychoanalysis. When we see that these states do not change through subjective agency acting upon some actual empirical object but rather are only changes in view, then we must ask: What is this state wherein Zizek must disclaim his lecture in order to be understood, at once, to be not contradicting his innate imperative for logical consistency, and then as well not offending the sensibility that is discovered through psychoanalysis? Or more precisely: What is occurring such that this state, that he would have to qualify his subjectivity as naïve, against which a Socialist Bureaucracy seems preferable, or, what might be best to deal with things ‘after the carnival’ , needs be stated? Does not a state reflect itself de facto, automatically and axiomatically in the presentation?

What is occurring in the naive state is an inability to be dismissed from the carnival; an inability to make the next move; hence, for Zizek to communicate at this level and be honest he must qualify his presentation: What is naive is that which understands itself as not subject to psychoanalysis. So, the trauma continues and the carnival goes on; this is reality, the effect of the various periodic failures of the Symbolic and Imaginary Orders, and the solution to these evental failures is usually and commonly to resource the Symbolic and Imaginary orders, the orders by which the political world gains veracity, or the semantic scaffold by which what is political may be known.

One does not simply decide to give up on their world and then the world goes away; the world must be destroyed without consent. This is a fact. If we must speak of effective ideologies, we can hear Zizek through his book “Living in the End Times” (paraphrase): It is only at the time we notice the impending failure of an ideology that we fight hardest for its truth. We do not simply give it up, even if we know the battle is lost; we still man our stations and fight for the state. We do not simply and easily relinquish our world because we have a conception that it is ending. Notice the general responses to global warming. The rhetoric is not a condemnation of our system, rather the reaction is either flat denial or a call to adjust how we approach our modern living.


Likewise the recent Google diversity scandal. Notice that there is nothing terribly irrational or non sensible in the manifesto. In fact, his essay makes good sense from a open-platform ideal: Every voice should be heard, even the voice that has been marginalized in the popular political environment. He is not saying that Google should not address inequalities in the workplace; he is saying that the manner that they are being addressed may be based upon an incomplete consideration of the facts; a more complete rendition of the facts of inequality or structural misrepresentaion or skewed hiring and promoting practices being the logical and rational ideas that he presents, which are, actually, not too radical. He is not saying anything that I haven’t heard; whether or not I believe them or not, the various notions about gender he produces are indeed valid — but in a certain light.

Then look at the answer that is made by Danielle Brown, Googles new diversity manager.

…I found that it [the anti-diversity manifesto] advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Does anyone notice anything peculiar between the two discourses?

At risk of putting myself in either camp and looking as if I am defending the manifesto, the anonymous writer is merely putting forth his view under the ideal that everyone should be heard, he is saying that perhaps Google’s diversity policy should be put on hold until everyone is heard. There is nothing radical about this ideal; it is a very democratic and American ideal, liberal as well as conservative.

How about Ms. Brown? Her decision has already been made. The judgement of the diversity manager is that he is “promoting incorrect assumptions about gender”.  Is that really true? It kind of sounds to me that it is the diversity manager that is promoting assumptions that are not true, namely, that the dude is promoting incorrect assumptions. But as Lyotard noted,by what ground shall we legitimate either of these discourses?

Nevertheless, this (his, the Manifesto) incorrect assumption is one that Google does not endorse, and indeed is why he ended up fired.

I don’t think there is a better indication where this world of ours is headed: Nationalism is on its way out; Corperatism is in. Democratic ethics is no longer the standard but is indeed being commandeered by corporate policy, policy that will decide what is ethical for the future.

Just from a (fair) neutral position: I am curious what exactly his manifesto says that is an incorrect assumption about gender. Are we not allowed any more to suggest that men and women are different? I thought in the discussion about race, at least, we are supposed to embrace difference, acknowledge difference and not be blind to color of skin and cultural expression. Any considerate and intelligent person is left to wonder why difference in gender is not to be acknowledged and embraced? Don’t we do that when we fuck?

In the corporate world we do not fuck each other, we fuck other companies. Competition defines the space of ethics; a meta-narrative of ethics does not yet define an umbrella space of companies. Difference, it seems, is not to be abided in the consideration of the workers value: Only the overt potential involved in the equality and sameness of human beings in general is to be considered in the place of production. The ability to produce is the standard, and we, as corporate subjects, cannot afford the inefficiency that can arise in the a priori classification of workers ability: All workers are equal in the potential to produce. That is the (post-) modern ground of ethics.

What do we have? We have the very postmodern condition coming to fruition. The Manifesto Man speaks of a Google echo chamber. What could be a better description of his very condition: He is speaking about a kind of ethical space that we all know of, but because the our existential condition (for lack of a better term here), the ethical condition that is the liberal agenda of freedom and equality that has been with us for at least 200 years, he cannot be heard, indeed will not be heard. Knowledge no longer exists as some source  or conduit for access into an essential and ideal ground for ethics; knowledge now is determined along lines of which knowledge is valid, and so which knowledge is able to be heard. Lyotard puts it in terms of which knowledge is efficient. The Manifesto Man is speaking, and we all (but do we?) know what he is meaning, where he is drawing his knowledge from, but it is mute. Such knowledge is invalid: It is no longer a kid of knowledge that is included in what is valuable. The ‘experts’ have agreed and they have decided.


What better description of this world: carnival. And as well: dialectical. So what happens after? The discussion by two or more people is shut down and the discussion continues as if in an echo chamber, which is to say, the movement merely occurs and everyone just rides along, regardless of what sound is made. The Dialectic continues but under a new semantic rubric that is understood to not be new. Indeed; there is an irony occurring. For, while the point I make in my recent essay about ‘the event of the past’  and Zizek being naive, I find that around the same time (well, relatively speaking I suppose, lol) I was writing that post, Zizek himself was in Spain speaking about how he was going to proceed as naive (listen to the youTube above).

In this sense, we find a certain psychoanalytical significance to what is occurring at Google, but in the context of addiction as well. The naive subject has a voice that is always heard in the context of the times as a political voice, able to bring change to the world, in various potentialities, at various moments. But what occurs is that voice is automatically referred to a context that is outside of the communicative potential of the subject: She speaks, but it is as if in an echo chamber. The dialectical subject of ethics speaks of justice, but her voice resonates only in its own space, the sound that is heard in reality is offensive and indeed (now) incorrect, and actually promoting assumptions that no longer reflect what is true, except in as much as this echoing voice affirms the present justice; the past has been changed. As Zizek describes in his book “Event” determined by the facticity of the past itself, the present act alters the very condition by which it has come about to reflect the actuality of the present moment.


The addict in his cups is not privy to the change; she is determined by her past as she works to keep the past constituent to that ideal and dialectical moment. The addict sees the material as being unchangeable and essential, and ideal world or “musts” and “is’s”. Reality never breaks into the Imagined world to disrupt it and the addict stays in her echo chamber yelling for someone to hear her. But the world only hears a sound that no longer reflects the true of reality. The two exist within a dialectical moment that is denied for the purpose of asserting a justice that is already occurring, indeed has been occurring, albeit, to challenge the past which determined the criteria by which such justice has been ascertained.

Time behaves atemporally, as witnessed not only by Lyotard 40 some years ago, but in the movie “Fight Club” some 25 years ago:

This is no figure of speech, metaphor, or interesting artistic juxtaposition. It is the actual psychoanalytical situation that occurs.

(This clip is just so perfect ! lol)

Human Insanity 

Aside from what ‘popular’ form of reason, I rejext the ideal of absolute cultural relativism in certain cases. Those men who believe this is right should be eliminated.

Insane Anachronistic Cultural-Religious practice.
We, as an ethical people, need stop deferring our human values to insane values. 
We are not all insane. But certain groups are beyond ‘intervention’.  

As you might expect, also, I support the death penalty for convicted pedophiles and rapists. 
Just a thought. 

Have a nice day.