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

Prime Example of the Thinking Inside the Box.

How Zizek Should Have Responded to Jordan Peterson

How Zizek Should Have Responded to Jordan Peterson
— Read on benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/04/21/how-zizek-should-have-responded-to-jordan-peterson/

Here (Studebaker. Going forward “S”)is the perfect example of why Zizek tells us in the debate (Peterson/Zizek) why he can’t see a ways out of our dilemma.

It’s great that S has such a high esteem for Zizek, but S seems to not be able to understand how that ability of Z was actually working the other night.

The post in Current Affairs shows the laziness that current intellectualism rests within. S give us exactly the kind of lazy-fare production that exemplifies capitalism and the main reason why Zizek claims there is no way out: S analysis is pedestrian and relies upon not only his assumption of thought (And exalted at that) which goes into his essay writing, but likewise the presumption of substance which is invested already in the publication itself : in other words, what Peterson admittedly does not do a great job as defining, I have no problem making notice of: the Postmodern expert. (See an earlier post of mine).

The debate centered, as an object in-itself, the being of the debate, on indicting the status quo which argues itself as solution-oriented and progressive. The debate was indeed dialectical in its nature, two sides of different positions nevertheless working together to show a truth.

S is unable to see beyond his own Postmodern subjective privilege into what was actually pointed directly at him and intellectuals like him. Studebaker is unable to think without the ideological supports that tell him how to think. In other words: exactly what this debate was about, how one goes about viewing a debate, and what a debate is supposed to mean.

Here is, what (I don’t know?) a Harvard instructor (?) who can’t even see this simplest execution of philosophy right in front of his own eyes ??

What does this say about our institutions of higher learning and reporting? Really.

Really.

$$$$$

🤣. I am such a dork. Lol.

But really.

My longer analysis coming shortly.