General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
How all occasions do inform against me And spur my dull revenge. What is a man If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more. Sure He that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and godlike reason To fust in us unused. Now whether it be Bestial oblivion or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on th’ event (A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward), I do not know Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,” Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means To do ’t.
Speaking of which... Melville's "Paradise of the Bachelors" & "Tartarus of the Maids" was his best work. Moby Dick was for school kids. Read them if you haven't (they're short). To this day I'm still fascinated with the Inns at Court ("Paradise").
Who ever turn’d upon his heel to hear My warning that the tyranny of one Was prelude to the tyranny of all? My counsel that the tyranny of all Led backward to the tyranny of one? This power hath work’d no good to aught that lives And these blind hands were useless in their wars. O therefore, that the unfulfill’d desire, The grief for ever born from griefs to be The boundless yearning of the prophet’s heart— Could that stand forth, and like a statue, rear’d To some great citizen, win all praise from all Who past it, saying, “That was he!” In vain! Virtue must shape itself in deed, and those Whom weakness or necessity have cramp’d Within themselves, immerging, each, his urn In his own well, draws solace as he may.
"If life can no longer be narrated, wisdom deteriorates, and its place is taken by problem-solving."
"The reason that people take selfies is not narcissism. Rather, it is inner emptiness. There is no meaning to stabilize the ego. Faced with its inner emptiness, the ego constantly produces itself."
"A screen bans reality."
"Psychological disorders are symptoms of a blocked story... The patient is cured the moment she narrates herself free."
The mind's essence is emptiness, it's nature is cognizance. The two are indivisable and together are suffused with knowing.
For it is the ego (which in reality is not a thing) that is responsible for ignorane, delusion, and suffering. Conditioning and beliefs are the identities of the ego.
If you want to think more along the lines of the picture Deleuze lays out in his work, instead of thinking of the world like there's a bunch of "fixed essences to things", like a tree is a thing, a person's a thing, rock is a thing, think instead of reality as being made up by a collection of forces that are defined by their interactions with each other. Trillions of different forces that are all vying for expression in each moment as the world unfolds into the future. Well, in that kind of world then, Frederick Nietzsche is not a static identity. What we think of as Nietzsche, when he was alive at least, was the interaction between a collection of forces at a specific location. He was ultimately a "site of becoming". He was many different forces, all vying for expression, overcoming each other, gaining expression.
In other words, think of Nietzsche not as a person with an Essence (or Ego), like we might typically think of him. Nietzsche is a historical collection of forces that are still having impacts on forces in the world to this day. And when you look at them in that way, again, Nietzsche is not a static identity. To Deleuze, what we call "Nietzsche", in any given moment, is a temporary formation of just a repetition of certain similar forces that gained expression during this particular moment, but haven't changed drastically enough for the illusion of a static identity to go away.
So, on that same note, think of what you are along these same lines. Any identity where it seems like it's what you are right now is really just a temporary pattern of forces that found expression that, through repetition can seem to you like they're a stable identity.
But I mean obviously we also recognize that if other forces that are a part of you found expression, then you would be a different person. And if enough of them changed, and had repetition in another direction for a long enough period of time, then your whole identity would feel like it was something different to people. But never was there a static essence or identity to what you were, and always was there the ability for you to become something totally different, and explore new modes of existence.
Now, this is just a totally different way of looking at what a person is. Classic subjective identity just doesn't apply here.
Remember, the whole thing is called "the Alchemy of Finance". Well, it would also be "the Alchemy of social science". It would also be "the Alchemy of historical change".
And so, here's how he spells out some of these ideas in the book that were that he developed out of this realization of perception versus reality. So we're pack backtracking a page and a half or so in the book, if you're following along. He says, "I was greatly influenced at the time by Karl Popper's ideas on scientific method. I accepted most of his views, with one major exception. He argued in favor of what he called 'Unity of method'. That is the methods and criteria that apply to the study of natural phenomena also apply to the study of social events. I felt that there was a fundamental difference between the two. The events studied by the social scientists have thinking participants. Natural phenomena do not. The participants thinking creates problems that have no counterpart in Natural Science. The closest analogies in quantum physics, where scientific observation gives rise to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but in social events, it is the participant's thinking that is responsible for the element of uncertainty, not the outside Observer."
"Natural Science," he says, "studies events that consist of a sequence of facts. When the events have thinking participants, the subject matter is no longer confined to facts, but also the P, the participants perceptions. The chain of causation does not lead directly from fact to fact, but from fact to perception, and from perception, to fact. This would not create any insuperable difficulties if there was some kind of Correspondence, or equivalence, between facts and perceptions. Unfortunately, that is impossible because the participants perceptions do not relate to facts, but to a situation that is contingent on their own perceptions and therefore cannot be treated as a fact."
"So," he says, "that in fact, people don't act on facts, they act on their perceptions of facts." As he says, "facts lead to perceptions and then perceptions lead to new facts, which are new states of the world, but those are assessed as perceptions."
22 comments:
There definitely exisis folks today who apparently believe ignorance IS wisdom.
AS Slavoj Zizek would say, "I would prefer not to!" Or better...
Courage:Temperance::Wisdom:Justice
Opposed Virtues that always lead to "success"
Cowardice:Rashness::Ignorance:Injustice
Opposed Vices that always lead to "failure"
Not engaging in ignorance is the "virtue" of temperance.
...it's "inactivity" is "advised" by the virtue of "wisdom".
Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
How all occasions do inform against me
And spur my dull revenge. What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused. Now whether it be
Bestial oblivion or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th’ event
(A thought which, quartered, hath but one part
wisdom
And ever three parts coward), I do not know
Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,”
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do ’t.
That is a quote from Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivner,”. Zizek copied it from Melville.
Speaking of which... Melville's "Paradise of the Bachelors" & "Tartarus of the Maids" was his best work. Moby Dick was for school kids. Read them if you haven't (they're short). To this day I'm still fascinated with the Inns at Court ("Paradise").
If only some people had the wisdom.
Wisdom isn't enough. Wisdom is only 1/4 part of Virtue.
Tennyson "Tiresias" (excerpt)
Who ever turn’d upon his heel to hear
My warning that the tyranny of one
Was prelude to the tyranny of all?
My counsel that the tyranny of all
Led backward to the tyranny of one?
This power hath work’d no good to aught that lives
And these blind hands were useless in their wars.
O therefore, that the unfulfill’d desire,
The grief for ever born from griefs to be
The boundless yearning of the prophet’s heart—
Could that stand forth, and like a statue, rear’d
To some great citizen, win all praise from all
Who past it, saying, “That was he!”
In vain!
Virtue must shape itself in deed, and those
Whom weakness or necessity have cramp’d
Within themselves, immerging, each, his urn
In his own well, draws solace as he may.
Byung-Chul Han, "The Crisis of Narration" (2023)
"If life can no longer be narrated, wisdom deteriorates, and its place is taken by problem-solving."
"The reason that people take selfies is not narcissism. Rather, it is inner emptiness. There is no meaning to stabilize the ego. Faced with its inner emptiness, the ego constantly produces itself."
"A screen bans reality."
"Psychological disorders are symptoms of a blocked story... The patient is cured the moment she narrates herself free."
The mind's essence is emptiness, it's nature is cognizance. The two are indivisable and together are suffused with knowing.
For it is the ego (which in reality is not a thing) that is responsible for ignorane, delusion, and suffering. Conditioning and beliefs are the identities of the ego.
"Cowardice:Rashness::Ignorance:Injustice"
This is Donald Trump. See "They are eating the dogs!"
He proves Nazis were correct that repeating big lies are effective in swaying low information and less rational people.
Now factor in "Courage:Temperance::Wisdom:Justice" in considering these:
If Trump wins, he WILL be a criminal autocrat elevated above the law by his sycophants on the Supreme Court.
If Harris wins, would Trump and his supporters peacefully accept that outcome?
There will be more fascist violence either way. Count on it.
An Ego is a body without organs. The minds essence isn't emptiness, it's coping with the incoming screams from organs.
That is your current reified beliefs. Thousands of years of eastern WISDOM disagree with your very patriarchal western view.
from the Philosophize This podcast...
If you want to think more along the lines of the picture Deleuze lays out in his work, instead of thinking of the world like there's a bunch of "fixed essences to things", like a tree is a thing, a person's a thing, rock is a thing, think instead of reality as being made up by a collection of forces that are defined by their interactions with each other. Trillions of different forces that are all vying for expression in each moment as the world unfolds into the future. Well, in that kind of world then, Frederick Nietzsche is not a static identity. What we think of as Nietzsche, when he was alive at least, was the interaction between a collection of forces at a specific location. He was ultimately a "site of becoming". He was many different forces, all vying for expression, overcoming each other, gaining expression.
In other words, think of Nietzsche not as a person with an Essence (or Ego), like we might typically think of him. Nietzsche is a historical collection of forces that are still having impacts on forces in the world to this day. And when you look at them in that way, again, Nietzsche is not a static identity. To Deleuze, what we call "Nietzsche", in any given moment, is a temporary formation of just a repetition of certain similar forces that gained expression during this particular moment, but haven't changed drastically enough for the illusion of a static identity to go away.
So, on that same note, think of what you are along these same lines. Any identity where it seems like it's what you are right now is really just a temporary pattern of forces that found expression that, through repetition can seem to you like they're a stable identity.
But I mean obviously we also recognize that if other forces that are a part of you found expression, then you would be a different person. And if enough of them changed, and had repetition in another direction for a long enough period of time, then your whole identity would feel like it was something different to people. But never was there a static essence or identity to what you were, and always was there the ability for you to become something totally different, and explore new modes of existence.
Now, this is just a totally different way of looking at what a person is. Classic subjective identity just doesn't apply here.
It's nice you revere and attempt to make concrete Nietzsche views. He has a point, albeit questionable.
For the reified western mind there exists little chance for realization of truth. But, keep searching. Hope springs eternal.
There's no "truth" to find. Only differing expressions of will to power to be experienced.
Not in my phenomenal world. The "will to power" died quite some time ago.
I realize that many folks experience power and control as their attachment. Fine for them. They can suffer as that is what attachment yeids.
There's no "truth" to find. Only differing expressions of will to power to be experienced.
Yes, and 2+2=5.
Joe Con sounds like Winston Smith's thought police torturer O'Brien in the "Ministry of Love" in "1984".
Truth is what Big Brother Trump says it is. "They're eating the dogs."
Trump simply has read George Soros' book, "The Alchemy of Finance"
Remember, the whole thing is called "the Alchemy of Finance". Well, it would also be "the Alchemy of social science". It would also be "the Alchemy of historical change".
And so, here's how he spells out some of these ideas in the book that were that he developed out of this realization of perception versus reality. So we're pack backtracking a page and a half or so in the book, if you're following along. He says, "I was greatly influenced at the time by Karl Popper's ideas on scientific method. I accepted most of his views, with one major exception. He argued in favor of what he called 'Unity of method'. That is the methods and criteria that apply to the study of natural phenomena also apply to the study of social events. I felt that there was a fundamental difference between the two. The events studied by the social scientists have thinking participants. Natural phenomena do not. The participants thinking creates problems that have no counterpart in Natural Science. The closest analogies in quantum physics, where scientific observation gives rise to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but in social events, it is the participant's thinking that is responsible for the element of uncertainty, not the outside Observer."
"Natural Science," he says, "studies events that consist of a sequence of facts. When the events have thinking participants, the subject matter is no longer confined to facts, but also the P, the participants perceptions. The chain of causation does not lead directly from fact to fact, but from fact to perception, and from perception, to fact. This would not create any insuperable difficulties if there was some kind of Correspondence, or equivalence, between facts and perceptions. Unfortunately, that is impossible because the participants perceptions do not relate to facts, but to a situation that is contingent on their own perceptions and therefore cannot be treated as a fact."
"So," he says, "that in fact, people don't act on facts, they act on their perceptions of facts." As he says, "facts lead to perceptions and then perceptions lead to new facts, which are new states of the world, but those are assessed as perceptions."
Post a Comment