Have you looked into the sky and wished upon a star? But then the next moment, the sky come crashing down. What if I repeat it a hundred times and a thousand times. How would you feel? All dreams will be tempered and if you are smart enough, you will avoid making the same dream again- and what happens if I tell you have found a way around simply by rejecting it is a dream but it is reality. You get skeptical. What does skepticism serves? Yourself- you do not try.
You do not try to believe.
In the process of living a fulfilling life, skepticism serves by preventing you from aiming too high- and what if it becomes a way of life. You then becomes a "hipster"- too cool for anything. When you are too cool for anything and anything is within your grasp and everything becomes possible- so long as you remain skeptical. [ Since you are too cool, it means that I am just too good, I will let you have it]
What happens that since you are so cool and you really never get what you want, you become increasingly more detached and focused singularly on the one thing that will allow you to get what you want- which is coolness and detachment.
Imagine a lifestyle built around being a hipster: what you will get is a form of living formed around finding the "other" which will compensate for your inadequacy.
Let's put it in a manner which is more salient. Think of a cat which wants to be dog. It can never bark neither can it ever play catch, but what it can do is pretend to be a dog and act like a dog which is not developed. It tries to bark but turns out a weak meow and tries to catch the ball but runs a short while before displaying fatigue and faking it's fitness.
But it is never fulfilling watching someone else grab all the headlines- but what they can do is build an identity around what the other person cannot do- which is not grabbing headlines.
It places all hopes onto the dog and watches from afar it successes while living through having identity exactly opposite to this headline-grabbing dog- this is simply because it needs to feel fulfilled. This form of vicarious living circumvents all realities and produces satisfaction at level which is safe and sweet- simply because the opposite is really the same as the reflection.
And so the cat will always hang around not the master but around the dog and wishes, pushes and nudges the dog upwards in a manner which allows satisfies the desire of being the "dog" through the growth stage. This form of mentality is really a psychosis at a mass scale.
This is not idol worship but a form of psychological compensating mechanism by which the form cannot exceeds the function. The wish supersedes the realities in which all "enchantment" is lost and replaced by a sense of pride on the "other." The enchantment is built by ourselves and is not build for us by others. We are enchanted by our own creation and not satisfied by it.
There is no satisfaction in this form of action insofar that it is not internal, it comes from the external factors and let's us slip out of control from time to time.
The above is extremely particular to women in an politically correct sexual politics. This means that the realities makes it difficult for women to have real and direct power. But can build a reflection on which the other is the "men". This means that power is tangential and really is nothing more than a combination of external factors.
Women hold power only in a manner which is safe for them to exercise in a manner as "women" which is antithetical of power. This means that no amount of propaganda can even convince women is on top let alone the men. Hence, in a fulfillment to the social environment, many women have two tactics 1) form an other to the men 2) a mimicry to the male image. Either way, the fulfillment and satisfaction is as a result of men.
The dissatisfaction comes from the fact that it denies that it is a woman and not because a man makes a woman. It does not follow a "woman" ideal but a male "ideal"- where as a thesis or antithesis of it.
The fulfillment is total and dissatisfaction is lingering.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
What is Asian?
How can we create the "Others"? How can we create an identity insofar by which it allows for identification and shared resources? Culture which is defined as simply having traditions, rituals and rites in by which allows for a common identity. Very often language is used as a marker by which separates the line "Us" and the "Others". And in doing so, when we speak a different language, we are able to identify with each other and the various nuances by which we can separate "Us" from the "Others".
The process of separating "Us" from the "Others" is two fold. 1) by a formalized process- by which the heightened experience of a rites and rituals gives us a shared common identity- a blip from the mundane. 2) the informalized process, by which education and other forms of socialization process is used to enculture common identity markers by which to identify "Us" versus the "Others".
Traditional shared experiences is used insofar to ensure a common bond by which the blip in the mundane of each person's life is to ensure that each person is expected to remember the reason for it's existence in the first place. In the second, common socialization process, where we are able to identify different aspects of life by different methods ensures that the "Others" is kept from "Us". This is to ensure a common shared identity and insofar to ensure that resources are kept within a common identity and ensure it's continuation.
Likewise then, in the first, the rituals and rites is ensure that the actor is able in a self-directed manner by which is to the interest of the community. This means that rites is to mark various passages of life by which to ensure that more responsibility and hence more meaning is imbued, to ensure that who, why and when you are here.
In the second, this is to crystallized and operationalized the first. It is not enough simply to ensure to hold in the heart, it must have permeance. It's permeance comes from shared resources and comes from ensuring the continuation of the community in the first place. This is done by education and everyday life- which is distinctive from the "Others". Hence this is to a function of social, economic and political environment.
Only community members can participate in the first insofar to ensure a common of shared memory and history.
In the second, the continuation of a community can and might not need the first insofar, not because of it is exogenous but rather, increasing the resources meant as well, to strengthen the identity. This is done so by increasing the appeal of the identity insofar that having common identity means having access to more resources. This means that we can speak the same language but it doesn't mean that we are from the same community- this means that you can behave exactly like someone of the same community but it still doesn't mean that we come from a common identity. Ultimately the socialization and educational process is to ensure the continued existence of the community independent of the identity itself.
But the question beckons then how can we identity with each other while not sharing common bond? This is simply done by having the lowest common denominator in by which resources are shared. This means that the more we share, the more we identify with each other, but it doesn't mean that we have a form of social connection. This means that the "por soi" or for itself ensures the "en soi" or "in itself" exist insofar that people who speaks the language are in spirit carrying on the tradition.
The "spirit" is in the methods of everyday life. Take for example, why Asians prefer rice over say pasta or steak. We really don't need to feel Asian in order to prefer rice, we simply eat it without questioning but somehow we just prefer it over something else. Why- the "in itself" is at play. In this case, they will start correlating it to the height, the weight and health and nutritional value and start a "for itself" process all over again. Why we eat "rice" is so that we can become "more Asian". It becomes an absolute tautological argument.
Hence when we have more people eating rice, it increases and quickens the socialization and enculturation process simply increasing the amount of shared resources shared among those that they identify with.
Therefore we create an "Others" simply by eating "rice" simply because the "spirit" is in the act of eating it in the first place. Anyone who does not eat is not "Others", anyone who refuses to acknowledge that eating rice is "Asian" is then an "others". This is simply because you are not "promoting" the identity.
But the question beckons and the eternal question continues there: What is Asian?
Gotcha.
The process of separating "Us" from the "Others" is two fold. 1) by a formalized process- by which the heightened experience of a rites and rituals gives us a shared common identity- a blip from the mundane. 2) the informalized process, by which education and other forms of socialization process is used to enculture common identity markers by which to identify "Us" versus the "Others".
Traditional shared experiences is used insofar to ensure a common bond by which the blip in the mundane of each person's life is to ensure that each person is expected to remember the reason for it's existence in the first place. In the second, common socialization process, where we are able to identify different aspects of life by different methods ensures that the "Others" is kept from "Us". This is to ensure a common shared identity and insofar to ensure that resources are kept within a common identity and ensure it's continuation.
Likewise then, in the first, the rituals and rites is ensure that the actor is able in a self-directed manner by which is to the interest of the community. This means that rites is to mark various passages of life by which to ensure that more responsibility and hence more meaning is imbued, to ensure that who, why and when you are here.
In the second, this is to crystallized and operationalized the first. It is not enough simply to ensure to hold in the heart, it must have permeance. It's permeance comes from shared resources and comes from ensuring the continuation of the community in the first place. This is done by education and everyday life- which is distinctive from the "Others". Hence this is to a function of social, economic and political environment.
Only community members can participate in the first insofar to ensure a common of shared memory and history.
In the second, the continuation of a community can and might not need the first insofar, not because of it is exogenous but rather, increasing the resources meant as well, to strengthen the identity. This is done so by increasing the appeal of the identity insofar that having common identity means having access to more resources. This means that we can speak the same language but it doesn't mean that we are from the same community- this means that you can behave exactly like someone of the same community but it still doesn't mean that we come from a common identity. Ultimately the socialization and educational process is to ensure the continued existence of the community independent of the identity itself.
But the question beckons then how can we identity with each other while not sharing common bond? This is simply done by having the lowest common denominator in by which resources are shared. This means that the more we share, the more we identify with each other, but it doesn't mean that we have a form of social connection. This means that the "por soi" or for itself ensures the "en soi" or "in itself" exist insofar that people who speaks the language are in spirit carrying on the tradition.
The "spirit" is in the methods of everyday life. Take for example, why Asians prefer rice over say pasta or steak. We really don't need to feel Asian in order to prefer rice, we simply eat it without questioning but somehow we just prefer it over something else. Why- the "in itself" is at play. In this case, they will start correlating it to the height, the weight and health and nutritional value and start a "for itself" process all over again. Why we eat "rice" is so that we can become "more Asian". It becomes an absolute tautological argument.
Hence when we have more people eating rice, it increases and quickens the socialization and enculturation process simply increasing the amount of shared resources shared among those that they identify with.
Therefore we create an "Others" simply by eating "rice" simply because the "spirit" is in the act of eating it in the first place. Anyone who does not eat is not "Others", anyone who refuses to acknowledge that eating rice is "Asian" is then an "others". This is simply because you are not "promoting" the identity.
But the question beckons and the eternal question continues there: What is Asian?
Gotcha.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Chaos.
I have been making my rounds at the malls. There are so many couples walking up and down the halls that sometimes it makes me jealous. You see that I quit my job about two years ago and went back to my studies. In these two years, I have realized a number of things which is that having a relationship where presence is paramount is increasingly not important.
The jealousy comes from making the next alternative a better choice than this particular one. This means that what have we missed out while not going to a proper relationship. This means losing finding out about another person whom have a whole life story to tell, or some form of interesting snippets that they wish to share. This is the one thing that we all missed if we choose doing something else while picking to find not choosing to connect with someone.
In order to reconcile this particular form of rationality, many have often use work and other forms of practical matters by which to compensate for this lack of direct social connection. And in this particular choice, they have chosen instead to seek monetary compensation and sometimes abstract gratification in by which to relieve the pain by which talking someone would sometimes help.
This means that the social connection is in effect part of a larger social body and rather than a particular person or persons. This means that working is sometimes the choice simply because labour makes us feel part of a body by which we are creating something meaningful- and at the same time, we get paid for doing so. Alternatively if we are spiritual, we would like to change the world and forego some form of partiality in exchange for an objective view of the world by which we can bring about some form of vision which we deemed are creative.
The jealousy then comes in part from not discovering about another person by which we can too fulfill the same objective simply by extracting the same form of gratification from the above. This form of gratification is more fulfilling simply because it is more inductive. This means that we can find out more about the world through another person than having it to discover for ourselves through believing abstractly that our action has a minute form of change in the entire world.
This means that the jealousy is in part due to missing and sharing the life of another person as compared with finding out more about the world through your own eyes.
I really don't missed my life where my friends, girlfriends and family go out and together we find out and share some form of connection simply because it will always comes a time and a point in our life, where sometimes it is really not just about yourself. Seeking this form of gratification is simply a byword for a innocence of discovery through borrowed eyes.
The jealousy is not really companionship and neither is it some form yearning but rather at a level by which are missing out something while seeking something larger. That has always and always be the tug and pull of doing something "useful" while the denying ourselves the chance to be "creative."
Personally, I still feel I have done my time on that. I am no egoist but really, the humming bird continues to hum regardless of what I do.
The jealousy comes from making the next alternative a better choice than this particular one. This means that what have we missed out while not going to a proper relationship. This means losing finding out about another person whom have a whole life story to tell, or some form of interesting snippets that they wish to share. This is the one thing that we all missed if we choose doing something else while picking to find not choosing to connect with someone.
In order to reconcile this particular form of rationality, many have often use work and other forms of practical matters by which to compensate for this lack of direct social connection. And in this particular choice, they have chosen instead to seek monetary compensation and sometimes abstract gratification in by which to relieve the pain by which talking someone would sometimes help.
This means that the social connection is in effect part of a larger social body and rather than a particular person or persons. This means that working is sometimes the choice simply because labour makes us feel part of a body by which we are creating something meaningful- and at the same time, we get paid for doing so. Alternatively if we are spiritual, we would like to change the world and forego some form of partiality in exchange for an objective view of the world by which we can bring about some form of vision which we deemed are creative.
The jealousy then comes in part from not discovering about another person by which we can too fulfill the same objective simply by extracting the same form of gratification from the above. This form of gratification is more fulfilling simply because it is more inductive. This means that we can find out more about the world through another person than having it to discover for ourselves through believing abstractly that our action has a minute form of change in the entire world.
This means that the jealousy is in part due to missing and sharing the life of another person as compared with finding out more about the world through your own eyes.
I really don't missed my life where my friends, girlfriends and family go out and together we find out and share some form of connection simply because it will always comes a time and a point in our life, where sometimes it is really not just about yourself. Seeking this form of gratification is simply a byword for a innocence of discovery through borrowed eyes.
The jealousy is not really companionship and neither is it some form yearning but rather at a level by which are missing out something while seeking something larger. That has always and always be the tug and pull of doing something "useful" while the denying ourselves the chance to be "creative."
Personally, I still feel I have done my time on that. I am no egoist but really, the humming bird continues to hum regardless of what I do.
U2 everyday.
What is normal? This is a question that everyone poses but yet no one is able to really able to answer. The last post I wrote about meaning and how our life is essentially revolved in discovering that meaning. Does creation part of being normal or is normal simply a function of discovering the meaning of leading an everyday normal life. There are many layers of being normal- sometimes, being normal is just being part of a larger self and sometimes in that part of being the larger self, we search the meaning. Hence the argument leads us to understand one very simple idea: is trying to fit in to the larger self, the be all and end all of all human discovery.
This means that is succeeding and looking the part of a larger organism a sign of a self fulfilling life and in the process, we have finally realized the final analysis in our life.
There are two simple arguments to the above: in the modern age filled with skepticism, professing some form of dream and myth is really antithetical to leading a normal life. This means that leading a normal life is a like the new antithesis of the above and hence brings about some form of "dystopian pleasure". Think of suburban life and the various trappings of having comfort, time and luxury at your disposal. This means that rather than pursuing your dream as say a rock star or writer is passé and leading life in the fullest while denying the narcisstic and ego-satisfying pleasures of living a dream and leading the regular Joe life is the exact opposite and yet obviously the most pleasurable form of protest against some form of establishment.
"Normality" is not the new "rock star". Normality is simple the rock star of everyday life. We are fatigued and we are being screamed at by various mediums on diverging messages that simply leading a life that is deemed placid and comfortable is an effort almost in the protest of the some form of establishment which aims to turn us to self-seeking fools looking for instant fame and gratification.
In living a normal life, is really seeking meaning in the second order, in other words, it is really denouncing the fact that we will not seek self-pleasuring experiences and aim instead that discovering new meanings that we bring in our everyday life. Normality is commercialized so to speak.
How can we commercialized everyday life, this is done by simply denouncing that all dreams are false, and it is the attack on dreams that make us normal.
And in so doing, leading a normal life fulfills and satisfies our life on two purposes: 1) positive values 2) a rock star life. This means that we are creating new things while remaining part of the social body.
Think about it, this is the utopian dream isn't it- we can live like a gladiator without taking on a fight. Thank you very much.
Think your life as living in a computer game: there is no reset button but you simply keep on winning.
Hence if being normal means taking on a fight without fighting for our positive values and then really what are we fighting for? If discovering meaning in our daily lives while living like a "gladiator" that does not dies, what is our daily life: a "toothless" gladiator.
The day of state of flux become increasingly pronounced and we have to hold on to something. We no longer can dream that dream simply because we believed that our life blast us with so many images and messages. Our life is missing something insofar that disappointment is the order of the day. We do not wish to take on the world and missed out on the worldly pleasures, with that rather than become mindless and headless consumers and wishing that the next iPhone will fall onto our lap, we take on "something"- anything. This something is the assault on the establishment.
We will not bring you down, we will screw you- how do we do that- we will deny that you exist, and you will not permeate our existence. This is our life, normality is mine to keep- you are the asshole and not me. You son of a bitch.
This means that is succeeding and looking the part of a larger organism a sign of a self fulfilling life and in the process, we have finally realized the final analysis in our life.
There are two simple arguments to the above: in the modern age filled with skepticism, professing some form of dream and myth is really antithetical to leading a normal life. This means that leading a normal life is a like the new antithesis of the above and hence brings about some form of "dystopian pleasure". Think of suburban life and the various trappings of having comfort, time and luxury at your disposal. This means that rather than pursuing your dream as say a rock star or writer is passé and leading life in the fullest while denying the narcisstic and ego-satisfying pleasures of living a dream and leading the regular Joe life is the exact opposite and yet obviously the most pleasurable form of protest against some form of establishment.
"Normality" is not the new "rock star". Normality is simple the rock star of everyday life. We are fatigued and we are being screamed at by various mediums on diverging messages that simply leading a life that is deemed placid and comfortable is an effort almost in the protest of the some form of establishment which aims to turn us to self-seeking fools looking for instant fame and gratification.
In living a normal life, is really seeking meaning in the second order, in other words, it is really denouncing the fact that we will not seek self-pleasuring experiences and aim instead that discovering new meanings that we bring in our everyday life. Normality is commercialized so to speak.
How can we commercialized everyday life, this is done by simply denouncing that all dreams are false, and it is the attack on dreams that make us normal.
And in so doing, leading a normal life fulfills and satisfies our life on two purposes: 1) positive values 2) a rock star life. This means that we are creating new things while remaining part of the social body.
Think about it, this is the utopian dream isn't it- we can live like a gladiator without taking on a fight. Thank you very much.
Think your life as living in a computer game: there is no reset button but you simply keep on winning.
Hence if being normal means taking on a fight without fighting for our positive values and then really what are we fighting for? If discovering meaning in our daily lives while living like a "gladiator" that does not dies, what is our daily life: a "toothless" gladiator.
The day of state of flux become increasingly pronounced and we have to hold on to something. We no longer can dream that dream simply because we believed that our life blast us with so many images and messages. Our life is missing something insofar that disappointment is the order of the day. We do not wish to take on the world and missed out on the worldly pleasures, with that rather than become mindless and headless consumers and wishing that the next iPhone will fall onto our lap, we take on "something"- anything. This something is the assault on the establishment.
We will not bring you down, we will screw you- how do we do that- we will deny that you exist, and you will not permeate our existence. This is our life, normality is mine to keep- you are the asshole and not me. You son of a bitch.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Black or White
What is meaning? Meaning is built on two layers of reality, the first level is the one where the act is in itself predicated on the premise that it is experienced. The second level of reality is the discovery that the act we experienced above is nothing more than a product in which we are not able to control- hence the meaning is lost insofar that the environment emanates the meaning and vice versa.
Hence in this case, the baby who upon entry into world cries insofar that it is first that it "knows". The baby stops crying and is constantly disturbed for the need to feed, realizes that there are people around him/her that is stopping him/her from doing otherwise.
Hence from the above, in the first, the meaning comes from the actual crying and in the second, the meaning comes from the fact, he/she have to realize he/she have to deal with the "world".
Since there is no stimuli in the womb by which he/she is aware of, the baby must then realized that whatever he/she does is experienced. The meaning comes from perhaps yawning in the womb or kicking.
When the baby cries after being disturbed for crying, he/she realizes that it is "different". The "different" then comes from the meaning that the crying itself is not as a result of the first baby step, but rather the crying is the result of having to deal with matters that is "unfamiliar".
To say that we have two layers meaning would be in this case be mistaken, this would mean that crying comes first, controlling crying comes second. This means crying is some form of primordial instinct that we was built upon some form of internal structure. After learning that someone is feeding us hence we should not cry, we learn how to control the crying "instinct" by which it is considered as form of higher form of human civilization is wrong. Patently wrong.
This presupposes one simple fact that we are "programmed" in a manner by which upon coming out of womb, we are of an higher form than if we are not.
Let us then consider a simple case where a baby does not cry upon coming out, does it mean that it is already a "higher" form of species with no inkling of primordial instincts.
We would then in this case go back to the various biological or some of archaic understanding that differentiates the lower form and the "higher" form.
A higher meaning means "controlling" your "primordial" instincts. A lower form means allowing your "primordial" instincts to flow. Hence how can we interpret the above without assuming that primordial instincts is basically stacked below that of having to control this particular instinct. This means that allowing one to cry is on par or at least as "natural" as "controlling" this particular "primordial instinct".
Consider the scenario where your father hit you if you cry- what type of meaning would one have to consider. Does this mean that the father hitting you is NOT "primordial" and hence "controlling" is therefore a higher or if not an equivalent form of meaning. This means that controlling your urge to cry is hence higher than your father hitting you?
It would take an extremely saintly man to say that a father hitting you is NOT hitting you out of anger but rather out of "controlling" his own urge of "god knows what". To assume that a father hitting you due to a reason has only two meanings: 1) morality 2) patriarchal. Both does not have a higher meaning insofar that it requires anger for it to be effective.
Hence controlling the urge to cry because your father hitting you is a lower reason is to have a meaning equivalent of being a baby- and how does control comes into play?
Hence in this case, controlling your urge because your father is hitting you is higher simply because anger is "wrong." What does that makes you, a saint?
Control comes then in two fold 1) as a primordial instinct insofar to avoid more pain 2) Control becomes than as a form of "saintly" quality- which presupposes a need to avoid control as a form of control.
In sum, control is hence not just a higher meaning, it is also as a primordial defensive mechanism. A crying baby is scared hence he cries, a newborn baby that does not cries does not mean that it is of a higher order and not necessarily higher, it might just be a mixture of environment factors quite different in each setup. Ultimately this means that it is really good to cry sometimes whether you like it or not.
Hence in this case, the baby who upon entry into world cries insofar that it is first that it "knows". The baby stops crying and is constantly disturbed for the need to feed, realizes that there are people around him/her that is stopping him/her from doing otherwise.
Hence from the above, in the first, the meaning comes from the actual crying and in the second, the meaning comes from the fact, he/she have to realize he/she have to deal with the "world".
Since there is no stimuli in the womb by which he/she is aware of, the baby must then realized that whatever he/she does is experienced. The meaning comes from perhaps yawning in the womb or kicking.
When the baby cries after being disturbed for crying, he/she realizes that it is "different". The "different" then comes from the meaning that the crying itself is not as a result of the first baby step, but rather the crying is the result of having to deal with matters that is "unfamiliar".
To say that we have two layers meaning would be in this case be mistaken, this would mean that crying comes first, controlling crying comes second. This means crying is some form of primordial instinct that we was built upon some form of internal structure. After learning that someone is feeding us hence we should not cry, we learn how to control the crying "instinct" by which it is considered as form of higher form of human civilization is wrong. Patently wrong.
This presupposes one simple fact that we are "programmed" in a manner by which upon coming out of womb, we are of an higher form than if we are not.
Let us then consider a simple case where a baby does not cry upon coming out, does it mean that it is already a "higher" form of species with no inkling of primordial instincts.
We would then in this case go back to the various biological or some of archaic understanding that differentiates the lower form and the "higher" form.
A higher meaning means "controlling" your "primordial" instincts. A lower form means allowing your "primordial" instincts to flow. Hence how can we interpret the above without assuming that primordial instincts is basically stacked below that of having to control this particular instinct. This means that allowing one to cry is on par or at least as "natural" as "controlling" this particular "primordial instinct".
Consider the scenario where your father hit you if you cry- what type of meaning would one have to consider. Does this mean that the father hitting you is NOT "primordial" and hence "controlling" is therefore a higher or if not an equivalent form of meaning. This means that controlling your urge to cry is hence higher than your father hitting you?
It would take an extremely saintly man to say that a father hitting you is NOT hitting you out of anger but rather out of "controlling" his own urge of "god knows what". To assume that a father hitting you due to a reason has only two meanings: 1) morality 2) patriarchal. Both does not have a higher meaning insofar that it requires anger for it to be effective.
Hence controlling the urge to cry because your father hitting you is a lower reason is to have a meaning equivalent of being a baby- and how does control comes into play?
Hence in this case, controlling your urge because your father is hitting you is higher simply because anger is "wrong." What does that makes you, a saint?
Control comes then in two fold 1) as a primordial instinct insofar to avoid more pain 2) Control becomes than as a form of "saintly" quality- which presupposes a need to avoid control as a form of control.
In sum, control is hence not just a higher meaning, it is also as a primordial defensive mechanism. A crying baby is scared hence he cries, a newborn baby that does not cries does not mean that it is of a higher order and not necessarily higher, it might just be a mixture of environment factors quite different in each setup. Ultimately this means that it is really good to cry sometimes whether you like it or not.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Exploitation
What is a post-capitalist society? This is a subject many have not dare to approach. It has been postulated that it is a post-modern society built on flux and values is nothing more than a positivist concept. This means that context is the main praxis for action and whatever essential is nothing more than a socially constructed reality which is perfectly malleable through the environment.
Assuming that this capitalist/proletariat divide has been settled where society is moving toward a society built on materialist back rather than a shared ideals of "every man and to it's every need". This means that the surplus labour built upon over the years by workers have to redistributed, insofar then in this case, surplus labour accumulated over the yesteryears has to be reinvested or kept under lock and key, future surplus labour will NOT be distributed inequitably to capital owners. This means it is no longer a 80/20 rule but rather a form of equitable distribution built upon more 20/80 rule, this means the bulk of majority surplus labour continued to be redistributed to the capital owners and the 20% of the surplus labour is "equitably redistributed" to the "have-nots". Does this count as a socially equitable solution?
How then does this 80% disappear into thin air without causing so much as form of alienation in which the work we do is nothing more than a function of "being for-itself". This means that the lack of creation and meaning in the work we do is really just a sliver part of giant operation as a cog in the wheel. How does anyone feel being outside of itself all the time?
It is obvious that capital has won and labour has lost but how can we convinced labour has lost without pissing them off. Hegemony is often the answer, where the state has infiltrated everyday life and impose itself to provide an ideological answer to the obvious inequitable situation.
The types of hegemony is manifold. But let us revisit then how do we produce something which doesn't belong to us and yet get a tiny part of profit and yet felt that the world has been fair to us. Is this a "post-capitalist" society where capital is NOT the currency but rather another "form" is the currency.
Let us revisit what is a capitalist society. A capitalist society is one where the mode of production is the material background. This means that the means of production is capital and in which labour is part of equation. This is opposed as labour as a means of production. This means that moving money around is the key in this mode of production. Moving "effort" around is then the key to labour as a means of production. Essentially what this means is that the structure of society is built on capital as the main currency, and it's accumulation is the end of it. Ultimately, the state, religion, society, class is built on this capital foundation and all forms of society is the nothing onto this particular end.
The capital then is assuming then that is nothing more than an accumulation of surplus labour insofar then that it does not matter how much "effort" is generated but rather how much capital is accumulated. This means that what is "capital"?
Is capital equals to just money? Capital is not just equal money, money is nothing more than an exchange value for the use value of labour. I can use cows or beans for exchange of labour for that matter but insofar then that if I get money, does that means I am receiving surplus labour built upon the bedrock of the use value of those that are workers. The answer is NO.
If I received money for doing nothing, does it mean that I am actually a capitalist? The simple answer is productivity. If for example, I am capital owner, I invest 100 million and 80 million goes to the construction of the plant and capital goods and 20 million goes to the workers. It then produces 20 million of revenue of which 10 million goes to me the capital owner and the rest is shared among 1,000 workers, does that mean that I am accumulating surplus built upon 1,000 workers "effort" generating labour- where my work is mainly to provide the "intellectual expertise", which is freely available through certain form of open market education. The answer is Yes.
But if for example, I am a worker which builds on bluffing my way through and using other worker's labour to do my job while collecting my pay monthly, that is a "managerial" position. By bluffing, I mean to provide and cede to prevailing order without so much of an "effort"- a managerial perspective is always primed towards the maximizing the accumulation of "surplus labour" for the benefit of capital owners. This is NOT a capitalist.
If "work" is defined as nothing more than labour by which it is means to producing something, of course, this is "labour". But if the labour is dedicated towards producing something other than an exchange for a use value, this is not labour. This means that labour is dedicated towards producing anything other than without an exchange value is not labour.
This means that the use value without a exchange value is not your wife doing housework without incurring GDP growth- there is use value, it is just not available for quotation on the open market. It is like doodling on a paper pad with no inkling that it would amount to anything. You know that it leads to nowhere, because your chance of being the next Picasso is next to nothing.
Let us then re-visit how does this 20/80 rule works. It is telling to these 80% people that I am taking your money away but you have to find a way to redistribute the 20% among yourself equitably. I will find all ways and means to ensure that this 20% is redistributed equitably among the 80% with minimal disruption- that is where the "small state", big economy comes into play.
Is this then the "post-capitalist" society where context is king and materiality is ultimately "immaterial"? Does this means that moving 20% of the money effortlessly without an inkling towards an ultimate end is a "post-capitalist" society in flux?
Is this the final bastion in human society- this is obviously NOT. There is no final analysis, a society in a state of flux is a final analysis however it is put across. Materiality is abandoned in a state of flux and this means that meaning is superfluous and capital is nothing, by which all forms of labour is nothing more than moving expedition of human energy nothing more and nothing less. Meaning is lost insofar that that things are always moving.
Capital has won, no doubt about it. Human energy remains- but it's expedition is built not at accumulation of capital but rather always on the move. The move towards what: "moving"??
This form of socially constructed reality built around a capitalist background and which context is superfluous means that human endeavor, adventure and action is really nothing more a product of an environment by which the veil is never lifted but always predicated towards not finding out the "true" meaning in life but rather upon as an end itself.
Action for action sake while not acknowledging the materiality by which it is built upon is NOT the final analysis and is not a "post-capitalist" society. But rather societal trajectory built upon which is not at an particular end is an alienation and by which nothing has changed for last hundred years. We are exploited- once you accept that, you move on with your life.
Assuming that this capitalist/proletariat divide has been settled where society is moving toward a society built on materialist back rather than a shared ideals of "every man and to it's every need". This means that the surplus labour built upon over the years by workers have to redistributed, insofar then in this case, surplus labour accumulated over the yesteryears has to be reinvested or kept under lock and key, future surplus labour will NOT be distributed inequitably to capital owners. This means it is no longer a 80/20 rule but rather a form of equitable distribution built upon more 20/80 rule, this means the bulk of majority surplus labour continued to be redistributed to the capital owners and the 20% of the surplus labour is "equitably redistributed" to the "have-nots". Does this count as a socially equitable solution?
How then does this 80% disappear into thin air without causing so much as form of alienation in which the work we do is nothing more than a function of "being for-itself". This means that the lack of creation and meaning in the work we do is really just a sliver part of giant operation as a cog in the wheel. How does anyone feel being outside of itself all the time?
It is obvious that capital has won and labour has lost but how can we convinced labour has lost without pissing them off. Hegemony is often the answer, where the state has infiltrated everyday life and impose itself to provide an ideological answer to the obvious inequitable situation.
The types of hegemony is manifold. But let us revisit then how do we produce something which doesn't belong to us and yet get a tiny part of profit and yet felt that the world has been fair to us. Is this a "post-capitalist" society where capital is NOT the currency but rather another "form" is the currency.
Let us revisit what is a capitalist society. A capitalist society is one where the mode of production is the material background. This means that the means of production is capital and in which labour is part of equation. This is opposed as labour as a means of production. This means that moving money around is the key in this mode of production. Moving "effort" around is then the key to labour as a means of production. Essentially what this means is that the structure of society is built on capital as the main currency, and it's accumulation is the end of it. Ultimately, the state, religion, society, class is built on this capital foundation and all forms of society is the nothing onto this particular end.
The capital then is assuming then that is nothing more than an accumulation of surplus labour insofar then that it does not matter how much "effort" is generated but rather how much capital is accumulated. This means that what is "capital"?
Is capital equals to just money? Capital is not just equal money, money is nothing more than an exchange value for the use value of labour. I can use cows or beans for exchange of labour for that matter but insofar then that if I get money, does that means I am receiving surplus labour built upon the bedrock of the use value of those that are workers. The answer is NO.
If I received money for doing nothing, does it mean that I am actually a capitalist? The simple answer is productivity. If for example, I am capital owner, I invest 100 million and 80 million goes to the construction of the plant and capital goods and 20 million goes to the workers. It then produces 20 million of revenue of which 10 million goes to me the capital owner and the rest is shared among 1,000 workers, does that mean that I am accumulating surplus built upon 1,000 workers "effort" generating labour- where my work is mainly to provide the "intellectual expertise", which is freely available through certain form of open market education. The answer is Yes.
But if for example, I am a worker which builds on bluffing my way through and using other worker's labour to do my job while collecting my pay monthly, that is a "managerial" position. By bluffing, I mean to provide and cede to prevailing order without so much of an "effort"- a managerial perspective is always primed towards the maximizing the accumulation of "surplus labour" for the benefit of capital owners. This is NOT a capitalist.
If "work" is defined as nothing more than labour by which it is means to producing something, of course, this is "labour". But if the labour is dedicated towards producing something other than an exchange for a use value, this is not labour. This means that labour is dedicated towards producing anything other than without an exchange value is not labour.
This means that the use value without a exchange value is not your wife doing housework without incurring GDP growth- there is use value, it is just not available for quotation on the open market. It is like doodling on a paper pad with no inkling that it would amount to anything. You know that it leads to nowhere, because your chance of being the next Picasso is next to nothing.
Let us then re-visit how does this 20/80 rule works. It is telling to these 80% people that I am taking your money away but you have to find a way to redistribute the 20% among yourself equitably. I will find all ways and means to ensure that this 20% is redistributed equitably among the 80% with minimal disruption- that is where the "small state", big economy comes into play.
Is this then the "post-capitalist" society where context is king and materiality is ultimately "immaterial"? Does this means that moving 20% of the money effortlessly without an inkling towards an ultimate end is a "post-capitalist" society in flux?
Is this the final bastion in human society- this is obviously NOT. There is no final analysis, a society in a state of flux is a final analysis however it is put across. Materiality is abandoned in a state of flux and this means that meaning is superfluous and capital is nothing, by which all forms of labour is nothing more than moving expedition of human energy nothing more and nothing less. Meaning is lost insofar that that things are always moving.
Capital has won, no doubt about it. Human energy remains- but it's expedition is built not at accumulation of capital but rather always on the move. The move towards what: "moving"??
This form of socially constructed reality built around a capitalist background and which context is superfluous means that human endeavor, adventure and action is really nothing more a product of an environment by which the veil is never lifted but always predicated towards not finding out the "true" meaning in life but rather upon as an end itself.
Action for action sake while not acknowledging the materiality by which it is built upon is NOT the final analysis and is not a "post-capitalist" society. But rather societal trajectory built upon which is not at an particular end is an alienation and by which nothing has changed for last hundred years. We are exploited- once you accept that, you move on with your life.
Do we care whether the country have no money?
I have not been reading the papers in depth recently. The US government shutdown dominates the headline.
The apparent disconnect between the shutting down of the US government and the market is amazing. This market have not moved an iota in spite of the shutting down of basic government services and security forces remain unpaid.
There have not been major reports of violence and neither is there mass panic painting the headlines. I have not been able to read in depth the mechanics how this shut down works but this means nothing more than an administrative backlog and nothing more than a slowdown in all forms of non-essential services.
This means that all emergencies will be catered for and all other forms of non-emergency cases will be push behind. If the government is incapable to pay it's people and yet the country functions as per normal means that it is a function of nothing more than a procedural limitations rather than true fiscal picture. This apparent gridlock is the result of the clash between the dominant parties inability to agree on statutory limits of the debt and not because it is a cash flow problem.
This means that it is business as usual but let just put it this way: We are facing some problems agreeing with each other- please bear with us. But the problem lies whether this is a systemic problem. This debt ceiling debate is an overhang on the apparent downgrade of it's sovereign bonds and it sudden need to exercise financial prudence even if it is means of statutory limitations rather than a fiscal one.
But the problem is that should an abstract and an almost ridiculously inane debate between two parties caused a shutdown of essential services even if basic functions continue as per normal. Are you trying to say that we really don't need the government and how do we provide basic services to everyone and it citizens and residents.
On the ground level, I am not there to experienced the true picture but it seems like this is a non-event, the willing shut-down of a government due to money problems. Huh.
We all can postulate one very simple idea is that: the government has been able to incorporate it's functions into various sectors in a manner which even essential services is shut down, these functions will continue to flow. This ultimately means all manner of political philosophy has lost its meaning altogether.
If security forces are left unpaid and government workers are not guaranteed their pay even if they have worked, what does it mean for the state, the nation and citizenship. Does it mean that a country is nothing more than a provider of services and nothing more. Of what use then, is the meaning of years of fighting, from the idea of a community, to the state and religion separation, the Magna Cartar, the Rights of Man, the Revolution, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Rationalism and ultimately finance. Does this means all man is a self-directed individual by which it's desires and wants are fulfilled by the manner by which the state is there but not there. If we are nothing more than self-seeking individual with no inkling of where we come from, and how we got there in the first place, of what use is having a small state, big market or, big state and centralized economy argument for in the first place.
In many developed countries, where the state has integrate itself seamlessly into the private sector by which this divide is blur, this apparent event is a non-event; insofar by which it is apparent, it does that the government is nothing more than a symbolic figurehead, the constitution, past endeavors and adventure and sense of history is nothing more than something to be manipulated, controlled and ultimately given as a free propaganda for it to provide, whatever you want and what they take mentality.
The feeling at this current moment begs this particular question is that where is Man heading. We have insatiable appetite and that is almost a given, but if the state is not the provider and the regulator of this wants and desires, who is then?
Economic Rationalism by which the linear relationship between what the people want and what the economy can provide is nothing more than Malthusian nightmare but this government shutdown has convinced many people, we can have anything we want so long as someone can provide it- it doesn't matter why and how, it jus is. If we can shut down a government and nothing really eventful happens, how then does Malthusian nightmare be ameliorated simply by inserting the state into various sectors.
Does this means that the state is among us and we have North Korean nightmare by which the small state is nothing more than ideological in by which it has been able to provide essential services simply being not there. Globalization have killed us and Internet have brought us together in a manner by which all differences has been removed and only our needs and wants are essential. Who are the Epilsons, the Gammas, and who are these people by which it seems no one cares and yet moved along with their lives.
We can postulate one very simply vision from the above episode, the small state does not exist anywhere, it is everywhere. The state is not just as a regulator, it is a provider and it is able to harvest all the needs and distribute by a manner by which it's forces are non-existent.
The social contract does not exist insofar by which the state is no longer the monopoly of violence but as a provider: if it is a private enterprise by which provision of goods and services is essential, what does it leave for private individuals exercising the free choice in the market place. Being a regulator and a provider is in itself a conflict of interest and can it provide the materiality by which the hegemony sits on. What are we sitting on really?
The hegemony we sits on is nothing more than the ability to fulfill wants, desires insofar by which disorder is barred. This means that we can have everything that we want so long as we keep our mouth shut. Does it sounds like anarchy- order without law.
If anarchy is a hegemonic state, this means the order by which we sits on is nothing more than ability to not be disorderly and have no form of meaning by which having a form without the function.
The apparent disconnect between the market and a US government is a superfluous one, this means that the country is business as usual and we are still in charge, you just don't see us. If you see us, you better watch out. The relationship between the state and citizen is blurred, but it doesn't mean that the nation, the history can be wipe out if I tell the you we cannot disagree on something we intend to agree on in the future. No one died, it is simply in black and white and in words.
The apparent disconnect between the shutting down of the US government and the market is amazing. This market have not moved an iota in spite of the shutting down of basic government services and security forces remain unpaid.
There have not been major reports of violence and neither is there mass panic painting the headlines. I have not been able to read in depth the mechanics how this shut down works but this means nothing more than an administrative backlog and nothing more than a slowdown in all forms of non-essential services.
This means that all emergencies will be catered for and all other forms of non-emergency cases will be push behind. If the government is incapable to pay it's people and yet the country functions as per normal means that it is a function of nothing more than a procedural limitations rather than true fiscal picture. This apparent gridlock is the result of the clash between the dominant parties inability to agree on statutory limits of the debt and not because it is a cash flow problem.
This means that it is business as usual but let just put it this way: We are facing some problems agreeing with each other- please bear with us. But the problem lies whether this is a systemic problem. This debt ceiling debate is an overhang on the apparent downgrade of it's sovereign bonds and it sudden need to exercise financial prudence even if it is means of statutory limitations rather than a fiscal one.
But the problem is that should an abstract and an almost ridiculously inane debate between two parties caused a shutdown of essential services even if basic functions continue as per normal. Are you trying to say that we really don't need the government and how do we provide basic services to everyone and it citizens and residents.
On the ground level, I am not there to experienced the true picture but it seems like this is a non-event, the willing shut-down of a government due to money problems. Huh.
We all can postulate one very simple idea is that: the government has been able to incorporate it's functions into various sectors in a manner which even essential services is shut down, these functions will continue to flow. This ultimately means all manner of political philosophy has lost its meaning altogether.
If security forces are left unpaid and government workers are not guaranteed their pay even if they have worked, what does it mean for the state, the nation and citizenship. Does it mean that a country is nothing more than a provider of services and nothing more. Of what use then, is the meaning of years of fighting, from the idea of a community, to the state and religion separation, the Magna Cartar, the Rights of Man, the Revolution, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Rationalism and ultimately finance. Does this means all man is a self-directed individual by which it's desires and wants are fulfilled by the manner by which the state is there but not there. If we are nothing more than self-seeking individual with no inkling of where we come from, and how we got there in the first place, of what use is having a small state, big market or, big state and centralized economy argument for in the first place.
In many developed countries, where the state has integrate itself seamlessly into the private sector by which this divide is blur, this apparent event is a non-event; insofar by which it is apparent, it does that the government is nothing more than a symbolic figurehead, the constitution, past endeavors and adventure and sense of history is nothing more than something to be manipulated, controlled and ultimately given as a free propaganda for it to provide, whatever you want and what they take mentality.
The feeling at this current moment begs this particular question is that where is Man heading. We have insatiable appetite and that is almost a given, but if the state is not the provider and the regulator of this wants and desires, who is then?
Economic Rationalism by which the linear relationship between what the people want and what the economy can provide is nothing more than Malthusian nightmare but this government shutdown has convinced many people, we can have anything we want so long as someone can provide it- it doesn't matter why and how, it jus is. If we can shut down a government and nothing really eventful happens, how then does Malthusian nightmare be ameliorated simply by inserting the state into various sectors.
Does this means that the state is among us and we have North Korean nightmare by which the small state is nothing more than ideological in by which it has been able to provide essential services simply being not there. Globalization have killed us and Internet have brought us together in a manner by which all differences has been removed and only our needs and wants are essential. Who are the Epilsons, the Gammas, and who are these people by which it seems no one cares and yet moved along with their lives.
We can postulate one very simply vision from the above episode, the small state does not exist anywhere, it is everywhere. The state is not just as a regulator, it is a provider and it is able to harvest all the needs and distribute by a manner by which it's forces are non-existent.
The social contract does not exist insofar by which the state is no longer the monopoly of violence but as a provider: if it is a private enterprise by which provision of goods and services is essential, what does it leave for private individuals exercising the free choice in the market place. Being a regulator and a provider is in itself a conflict of interest and can it provide the materiality by which the hegemony sits on. What are we sitting on really?
The hegemony we sits on is nothing more than the ability to fulfill wants, desires insofar by which disorder is barred. This means that we can have everything that we want so long as we keep our mouth shut. Does it sounds like anarchy- order without law.
If anarchy is a hegemonic state, this means the order by which we sits on is nothing more than ability to not be disorderly and have no form of meaning by which having a form without the function.
The apparent disconnect between the market and a US government is a superfluous one, this means that the country is business as usual and we are still in charge, you just don't see us. If you see us, you better watch out. The relationship between the state and citizen is blurred, but it doesn't mean that the nation, the history can be wipe out if I tell the you we cannot disagree on something we intend to agree on in the future. No one died, it is simply in black and white and in words.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Supple
Supple.
The emptiness drains from your eye,
the cradle that snatches the youthful energy away.
We try, try and try.
What we don't, we forgive.
What we do, we give.
When we save the forgiven from here.
It empties the draining spirit.
Yes, we lived.
Crankle the spanner,
Steer the slamming brakes on the door.
We need to see the slit in the light.
When the chance crackles,
Beg, steal, borrow we not.
The cool bang throb.
The emptiness drains from your eye,
the cradle that snatches the youthful energy away.
We try, try and try.
What we don't, we forgive.
What we do, we give.
When we save the forgiven from here.
It empties the draining spirit.
Yes, we lived.
Crankle the spanner,
Steer the slamming brakes on the door.
We need to see the slit in the light.
When the chance crackles,
Beg, steal, borrow we not.
The cool bang throb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
