Postcards:

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Postcards:

Postby d63 » Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:44 pm

“Glad to see this appear here. The premises I've commented on are all in a way explicating the difference between scientific logic and value ontology, which is analogous to the difference between designing reality and cultivating it. “

?: does scientific logic design reality as much as impose diagrams on it….

“Indeed, only in quantity of energy within the causes context, not in quality or quantity-type, the cause and effect are not by definition included in the same system. Causality is discerned at the intersections of different contexts. “

If I get you right, all there is are exchanges of energy that underwrite the phenomenon of cause and effect. And if you could, elaborate on how you feel cause and effect could not be included in the same system. I take it on faith and trust that you have your reasons. I’m just curious as to what they are.

That said, while it is hard to imagine a universe in which any event could be uncaused, you have to wonder if the notion of cause and effect doesn’t end up being more about a comforting narrative than an accurate description of how reality works. I’m working from your present study of Camus and his concept of the Absurd which is about the contingent relationship of a given cause and its related effect. I would also point to Irony which is a literary/philosophical technique that emphasizes the discrepancy between how things should work and how they actually work.

It seems to me, as you seem to suggest in the last sentence, that causality may well be something extracted “after the fact” or after the event. Once again: a diagram imposed on reality.

“Causality within one order is flux and has a direction or a pattern, causality bridging two or more orders is something that can only be described differently from different perspectives. “

Can’t help but think of chaotics here in that the feedback loops involved can only grow more complex as more and more orders (or bodies) are added. A planet with one moon is easier to predict as concerns the paths of the bodies involved as compared to a planet with 2 or more moons. Therefore, as the systems become more complex, it would seem natural for description to become more and more dependent on perspective.

“Yes, whenever reality overflows its bounds there is an flux of the infinite excess that the cosmic building of difference and repetition necessitates, but which does not have entrance to reality as long as reality can keep itself sufficient to its functions.”

If I get you right, I like to refer to this as poetic overflow: that which philosophy is best adapted to dealing with –that is as compared to the isolated systems that science must by necessity work with. Lacan, if I get him right, refers to it as The Real or that which overflows the symbolic order. But “infinite excess” works as well.

And yeah: function, and keeping sufficient to it, would seem to be a universal law. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here trying to describe it.

“Such a state must contain a history of at least one outburst of excess -
"one must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star" - Or one must build up potential to excess and unleash new chaos - without destroying oneself.
Every cvild is born with and around a good degree of chaos - the chasm between father and mother is one archetypical source.”

First of all, being more of an artist than a philosopher, that is one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes.

That said, your equation of consciousness with an “outburst of excess” seems exceptionally profound to me –which means I’ll have to steal it and make it my own. Sorry, brother. But if it’s any consolation, I like to quote my sources and am not that concerned with being the first one.

But yeah: for someone who hasn’t quite gotten to Deleuze and Difference and Repetition, you certainly seem to have a good understanding of what he was getting at. And even more impressive, you’re making it your own and taking off on it.

That said, my take on Difference and Repetition is that Repetition is what holds it all together while Difference is what keeps it dynamic enough to keep it going. It lies at the metaphysical/logical (semantic) core in that repetition, at its purest, must always be a different instance of the same thing which means that the only thing repeated is difference. It’s as if, like a shark, it has to keep moving to keep existing. To put it in Sartrean terms: it has to maintain a flight from nothingness in order to continue to be something.

“I doubt that it is possible to speak of such a fate as an existent fact; such a total fate can not be predetermined, as its determination includes all the factors that play into it and which can only be known in retrospect - it is not for any part to say which parts of other parts will come into play -

Much like or genetic structure is 'set in stone' so to speak, but the patterns that draw from them are not. Every genetic makeup can give rise to very many different behavioral patterns. So every condition can give rise to many different outcomes. At least, that we can tell from within the moment where the causation is rooted.”

Once again: Irony and the Absurd and causation as a comforting narrative. It’s as if we try to translate the fixed causal relationship of small isolated systems (1+1=2, water will boil at 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure) to the complexity and infinite interactions of infinite systems of reality. This, of course (for reasons I think we both understand) is a failed project.

It’s been a real pleasure jamming w/ u, brother.

mickthinks
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Postcards:

Postby mickthinks » Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:27 pm

Which posts are you quoting, d63? Who are you talking to?

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:29 pm

“It first does the latter and by means of the authoritative stability (repetition) of activity contained within these diagrams, it accomplishes the former.”

I would add to this point the moral dimension that is closely related to your point concerning science. The scientific method, especially as it is exploited by the TlB’s (Troll-like Behaviors) you tend to encounter on these boards, seems to get some of its shine from the moral imperative to follow those guidelines that can be perfectly repeated. Take, for instance, Kant’s Categorical Imperative which founds itself (and falters) on a desire to find a fixed one-size-fits-all ethical system that underwrites the bad faith of thinking we can find some system that will make it all work like some fine tuned machine. We can see in this a throwback to the days before Kant when the answer was to read the bible and ask your priest (the authority). In fact, we can see in this same order of repetition that laid in the justification for just about every despot that had existed before Kant: the notion that by simply repeating the mandates of the one in power (and their authority) society will work in such an orderly way (that is despite the metaphysical role of difference) that everyone will be happy. In fact, if you think about it, most utopian ideas are based on an over-emphasis on repetition.

We see as much in those who seek an objective aesthetic such as Pinker in the last chapter of The Blank Slate in which he attempts an objective criteria of beauty based on the underlying structures of the brain. Of course, the problem with this is that it automatically dismisses any aesthetic value that gets outside of the so-called objective value and establishes an authoritarian state that blocks the evolution of the meme machine that has driven our cultural progress. And in this sense, we can see the role that an overemphasis on repetition plays in more conservative/classicist ideologies. In fact, the 2 seem semantically tied together. And I would root this in Plato who was working at a time when mankind was just crawling out of the muck as it were. At this time, it would seem natural for people to assume: civilization good; nature bad. Of course, civilization, being a human construct, would seem to be an expression of that which can be perfectly repeated while nature would be an expression of difference. This is why the romantic period which, after years of tyrants who justified their power on that which was perfectly repeatable, decided we needed to turn to the repeated difference of nature and made itself an important break in the genealogical tree of culture.

And I believe it is that break that haunts our issue with those who want to reduce philosophy to little more than lip service and cheer squad to the scientific method. This is why the question has even come up as to whether science has made philosophy obsolete. But this is an authoritarian tactic based on repetition. Getting back to the original point, this is how the insistence on the scientific method gets its shine from the old moral imperative to find codes of behavior that can be perfectly repeated. Much as Kant was attempting to do, the desire to make philosophy subservient to science is little more than an attempt to establish a new religion: that which facilitates repetition through authority. And as far as I’m concerned, this movement is being underwritten by the new aristocracy: producer/consumer Capitalism.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:40 pm

mickthinks wrote:Which posts are you quoting, d63? Who are you talking to?


Sorry Mick.

I'm bouncing around between several philosophy boards. I only recently added this one. And given my limited window on the boards, I have to kill several birds with one stone. So a lot of these will consist of dialogues I'm engaged in on other boards. It's why I use quotes without actually pointing out who it is I'm quoting. This is because all that is important to me is the discourse: what I like to call the jam.

That said, I hope you, and other members, will engage in the discourse by extracting what they can respond to and respond. Beyond that, it is up to me to keep it within the criteria of the philosophical discourse.

I look forward to your participation, D.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 4529
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Postcards:

Postby vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:18 pm

That's odd.

mickthinks
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Postcards:

Postby mickthinks » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:36 am

Yes, very odd. But it could be made to work, I think.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:07 am

Yeah, I know it's odd. But through this strategy, I can pick out the posts that are philosophically relevant from the different message boards I play around in and give you guys an opportunity to participate in the discourse. I can spread the discourse between those that are serious about their process.

The main thing here is the jam. What we do on these boards is supplementary to our more serious pursuits in the same way a jam is supplementary to a musician. We have to play around with our concepts in order to find anything we might fix in a book.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:07 am

“I think that is worlds problem in a nutshell - capitalism and science are both expressions of purified repetition. The cultivation of the repeating aspect of nature as its highest, most desirable. The selection of that which most consistently repeats, as ontologically primary. A kind of autism, or simply, fear and lack.”

I would add OCD (a desperate need for order) to the pathologies involved. Deleuze would likely point to the representation (or overemphasis on it) that results from purified repetition or an emphasis on it that comes at the expense of a healthy respect for difference. And in order for science and Capitalism to retain the power they have, they have to turn to repetition. Difference could only undermine their power. This is why TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors) are so dependent on socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues. It’s why they think they can get away with throwing out words like objectivity, reason, facts, and the scientific method and act as if any assertion they make will stay within those perimeters. The words are perfectly repeatable. And by repeating them, the TlBs get caught up in a kind of momentum that allows them to think that their conjectures and speculations have the same fact status. Eliminative Materialists, for instance, point to all the scientific research that shows that the brain lights up in certain areas when engaging in certain experiences. But this is purely a matter of correlation –not cause or proof that the mind is little more than the brain. It can explain the underlying mechanics. But it can’t explain the experience itself.

It’s a little like arguing: 1+1=2; Capitalism is the only legitimate economic system there is. It’s as if we should be so impressed by the fact that they got the 1+1 part right (that which is perfectly repeatable) we should automatically accept the assertion about Capitalism.

Once again, it is as if the moral aspect of repetition has bled into the scientific aspect along with the notion that we should simply accept it because it can be repeated and apply it to whatever assertions the powers that be make –that is when the repetition involved is generally based on the powers that be repeating it.

“Ive as yet no idea how the hell to get humanity off this drug of repetition.”

The drug of representation as well: the notion, rooted in Plato, that the human mind is capable of reflecting perfectly and thereby overcoming (or outthinking) reality itself. Once again: nature bad; civilization good –or that which can be repeated. This not to say that you were wrong in pointing out that there is repetition in nature. And I would argue that this is the source of the human disposition towards repetition. The problem started when humanity decided, out of a desire for control, to focus on repetition at the expense of difference and the role it played in our universe and history. I mean difference would seem inherent in our expanding universe. This might be, for instance, why music is so important to us: that which utilizes repetition while overlaying difference.

“They will get off it once the milk train does not return , but diminishes into a fog.”

That’s just it. For instance, back in the 70’s, we use to hear a lot about acid rain, the coming apocalypse, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. But it didn’t happen. The argument we get now is that because we have REPEATEDLY heard doomsayers predict the end of the world and nothing has happened, we can assume that the scientific consensus about global warming is the same thing. The myth that deniers like to turn to is the sky is falling. But I would also point to the boy who cried wolf: just because "wolf" has been cried many times before when the wolf didn't exist, that doesn't mean it isn't here now.

But regardless of how many times we have been on the edge of doom only to find out it amounted to nothing, can we really be sure that it won’t be DIFFERENT this time?

Once again: that almost religious faith in repetition.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:11 am

I look forward to your participation.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Postcards:

Postby WanderingLands » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:30 am

I would like to step foot in participating a dialogue with you.

So you talk about repitition, and how it creates paradigms that are hostile to new ideas (I myself have talked of this on the forum about paradigms). What are the specifics of ideas that you think are being suppressed, and what are the ideas that need closer examination (talking specifically about Science)?

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:59 pm

“The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.”

“I do still think the quote befits me, as I've gone to change it many times but got defeated by it's telling words every time .

It's far from a depressing or immodest place but I have yet to figure out what it is, but I think it ultimately stems from a place of caution and dissatisfaction, but there is comfort in wine and the perusal of political goals.”

My experience of it lately has been the overwhelming presence (a kind of tyranny) of the petty and mundane: that which seeks to keep us within our delegated roles as producer/consumers. I don't know if you've experienced this (and maybe I am paranoid), but I can't help but feel that my commitment to this, and the process that allows me to do this in any kind of respectable way, is somehow an offense to God, mother, and country. I mean how dare we seek excellence in any discipline that not only does not benefit the investors, but actually questions the values by which they live -that is unless you have found a place in the corporate machine in which they can profit from your dissent. I find myself pursuing this at the expense of the petty and mundane bullshit that I'm led to believe I should be making my priority: what, as you suggest, is a matter of sign value or that which defines your status within the system.

This has become a major issue for me, lately, in that someone (like my mom) has become really sick. Now,all of a sudden, I'm expected to drop everything I am doing here in order to attend to what everyone expects me to do for her because I work nights and am free throughout the day. Now, while the matter of of my mother surviving is not petty and mundane, what is petty and mundane is the fact that the only reason these responsibilities are being dumped on me is because every one else is afraid a little more money might be extracted from their pocketbook in order to give her the care she actually needs -things like transport to Dr.'s appointments and radiation treatments.

Now, of course, in America, if I were pursuing something that might actually make some investor some money (that which would define my sign value) this would not be an issue since I would have the resources I needed to make sure these matters were attended to. But America would rather dump the problem on whatever poor soul happened to be close to the situation regardless of what resources they had to deal with it.

Therefore, we have 2 sides of a spectrum like that you describe: the side that, regardless of the heights they pursue, are even of lesser sign value if you refuse to conform to the petty and mundane when it comes to taking care of what they don't want to (my god, man! It is your own mother.), that is when the burden could be spread to where the effect on individual lives is hardly noticable; or the higher sign value of being able to afford to throw your mother in a nursing home and go right on being able to afford a higher standard of living along with your path to excellence.

In other words, our higher pursuits only matter to Capitalism to the extent that they can turn a profit. And that, to me, means that Capitalism must ultimately gravitate to mediocrity in that it delegates the possibility of excellence to those who are willing to submit to its values in the first place -even when they seem to be dissenting against it (Maher and Stewart for example). It generally will not allow you to pursue excellence without the concessions to the sign value that Capitalism controls. To put it in Lacanian terms: Capitalism must sustain us in a constant state of demand (that which can't be satisfied because we can never know what it is we're actually after) which will always draw us away from what it is we desire (that which can be satisfied if we have the space in our lives to find out what it is).

This is why I believe that Capitalism can only propagate misery (especially among those who want more than the petty and mundane) while Marxism is the only solution for those who seek their higher self: self actualization: that which allows us to spend our lives getting beyond ourselves: real happiness.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:48 pm

WanderingLands wrote:I would like to step foot in participating a dialogue with you.

So you talk about repitition, and how it creates paradigms that are hostile to new ideas (I myself have talked of this on the forum about paradigms). What are the specifics of ideas that you think are being suppressed, and what are the ideas that need closer examination (talking specifically about Science)?


I would say you were misquoting me if it weren't for the fact that you are basically working from what I said. In this situation, I would ask you to consider linear nature of language and recognize that it is always only one aspect of the belief system we have developed throughout our process. We all have to step foot into it.

And while repetition, in the moral dimension, can be hostile to anything that confronts it with difference (it is the diachotic opposite of difference after all), it is what facilitates new ideas (or difference). However, there is a human response to difference and repetition that tends towards putting more emphasis on what can be repeated at the expense of difference (the creative. The problem here, as concerns science (or an emphasis on what can be repeated) is not the tools by which science works, but the tendency of some of its champions to act as if there is no other path to understanding. And please be patient with my snaking around here. To rip off of and revise Russell:

"Philosophy lies in that no man's land between science and literature."

On one hand, philosophy works towards the rigor of science (repetition or that which can be repeated). At the same time, it works towards a kind of poetry of understanding or that which is as truthful as it is beautiful (difference). But this is not an either/or situation. It is a spectrum in which all those that engage in philosophy participate at different points in the spectrum at various times.

Now, to bring this back to the issue of difference and repetition, I can only offer my interpretation of Deleuze's point concerning his metaphysical core, which is as logical and semantic as it is ontological or metaphysical:

"A pure repetition, at its purest, can only be a different instance of the same thing which means that difference is the only thing repeated."

Beyond that, all there is is our response to it. This makes the overemphasis on the repeatable side of the spectrum (those who lean towards the scientific method) as natural as those who lean to the poetic/literary (difference( side of it.

The problem only occurs when the emphasis on the repeatable rejects difference as unimportant:

When the scientific fails to recognize that there are a lot of different people out there seeking understanding through a lot of different methods. When it does that, it succumbs to the very thing it presumes to be resisting: fascism.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Postcards:

Postby WanderingLands » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:06 pm

Your idea of what you have said about repetition and difference is definitely one that is true, especially when it comes to the difference between the mind and the world when the mind breaks with the world to create what would be manifested as "fantasies" or "pure imagination". I would like to add some things of what I learned, and maybe you can pick up on it and think about it, if you are interested.

Reality, for me, can be deduced as a wave, as in an interaction between humanity and nature. As soon as they completely mold their paradigm or whatever pattern, they move away from Nature and Constructive Interference (which are multiple waves interacting harmoniously), and instead define their own Reality and impose it on others, while not being open to other things (Destructive Interference). It's pretty much a concept, like aesthetics, where opposite forces work in conjunction with each other to produce thought, which manifests in a concept. One post of mine you may find interesting is "A Social Organism", found at the Political philosophy section of this forum.

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:33 pm

Something has come up in my study of Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition that, via Joe Hugh’s secondary literature on it, kind of sticks a knife in one of my sacred cows that has acted as a cornerstone to a lot of my thinking: namely the concept of intentionality or the notion that consciousness is always consciousness of something. Followed through, what this means, as phenomenology teaches us, is that in order to exist, we have to, at bottom, perceive that we exist. But as the book points out, the initial stages by which we come to recognize an object involves a passive synthesis consisting of an order that starts in the sensible, then moves on to imagination (that which synthesizes the various images or qualities –what has been referred to as qualia), then to memory (that which determines the object based on past repeated experiences with similar objects and the words we attach to them), and finally to thought (the domain of concepts in which a transition is made from a passive synthesis to active synthesis).

Of course, we can attribute the passive synthesis to the sub(un)conscious and the active to what we experience as consciousness. The problem for me is that it is a little contradictory to even talk about consciousness and its dependence on being conscious of something while recognizing the unconscious processes involved in the act of being conscious of anything.

Still, the concept of intentionality works as well as the process of recognition (the 3 syntheses) articulated by Kant and revised by Deleuze for the purposes of Difference and Repetition. The only way I see out of this is recognizing that while there is a process by which consciousness becomes conscious of what it perceives, there is still that initial encounter with the object that, for a split second, is unarticulated: primal even.
*
“So you talk about repetition, and how it creates paradigms that are hostile to new ideas (I myself have talked of this on the forum about paradigms). What are the specifics of ideas that you think are being suppressed, and what are the ideas that need closer examination (talking specifically about Science)?”

First of all, it is always good to find someone who gets it and has clearly assimilated it into their own system of thought. I see a highly creative connection here between the Deleuze’s concept of repetition (at least as concerns the social/ethical aspect of it) and Walter Kuhn’s book about paradigms –one I wish I had thought of in that I think I was working towards it but they got there first and articulated. It’s always a pleasure to jam with such people.

But I refer again to the metaphysical core that difference and repetition imply:

“Even a pure repetition can only be a different instance of the same thing which means what is primarily repeated is difference.”

The point is that repetition is not something that necessarily must lead to an authoritarian application of it, but rather something that we are all beholden to and lays out a potential for authoritarian applications of it such as the moral dimension. And this is what the French post structuralists and post moderns seemed really good at doing: pointing out those underlying structures of human behavior and thought and finding our common ground with those who have engaged in fascistic expressions of it. We can see in this a premonition of Deleuze’s later work with Guattari in which we are implored to seek out all pockets of Fascism and undermine them –including, and most importantly, those within ourselves. In other words, what condemns us to committing atrocities is our metaphysical connection to repetition (order) in that it anchors us against the eternal presence of difference (chaos).

In fact, repetition can be kind of liberating in that it can free us of the everyday matters (habits (those acts which we repeat because we have to (the petty and mundane (so that our minds can wander. Take: Einstein’s Wardrobe. It’s been said that if you looked into his closet, you would see a row of the same outfit. This was because he did not want to get up from bed and expend any energy on choosing which suit to wear. And like him, we all surrender to certain repetitions in order to find what is higher in us. At the same time, as Zizek points out, you have to keep in mind the fascistic implications and potential extremes of surrendering to such repetitions.

(In this sense, even difference has fascistic implications

: maybe because of its close (questionable and conspicuous( ties w/ repetition….

d63
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Postcards:

Postby d63 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:23 pm

“You are her son, closer to her than any other relative with the exception of any sibs you may have. She is her children's responsibility. Others bear no such obligation, the closest might be her siblings. Capitalism, money, time, should be of no concern to immediate relations unless there is no love.
I truly do know and understand your stress and anger but, the best you can do for you and her is to put it aside. I still carry guilt over my mom, It won't ever go away. She died and I failed her. Dude, my dear friend don't walk this path.”

First of all, sweetheart, rest assured that I am not going to walk away from her (she is laying on my bed watching CNN right now –and for the very possibility you describe: the thought of regretting not being there. Like it or not, the only way out is through. And I’m going to do what I have to, even if it comes to naught.

Still, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for resentment not against mom, but the situation in which I find myself in. And my love for her is only one variable in a highly complex situation that offers a lot of philosophical implications that thread through a lot of the issues I have covered on these boards. So forgive me for taking one of the main consolations (complimentary to my nature) I get from this and exploiting the situation by extracting what is evolving into a more finished intellectual construct or text.

The first thing to note here is that my issue with the petty and mundane (that which obstructs us from seeking our higher selves) did not start with my mom getting sick. When you start out on the path of the intellectually and creatively curious, you have these romantic notions about the great mind carrying the burden of the world. But what you actually find yourself up against are the practical matters: how do you pursue something that, in terms of the social structure you find yourself in, has no immediate practical value? How do you deal with the everyday matters in such a way that you are still free to pursue your higher self? And I have dealt with this throughout my process and have often come to the point where I wonder if it is worth it. I do not go a month without wondering if it wouldn’t be better if I gave all this up and committed to the petty and mundane. The problem for me, though, is that I have seen enough to know that would be the equivalent of surrendering me to slavery. And I have come to love the authentic freedom (at least, to me) of what I’m doing too much to do so without lingering reservations.

But the pressure is always there. There is always this feeling that by doing what I do (pursue my higher self) I have offended the general order of things because I see myself as getting outside of my socially designated role as producer/consumer –a role which most people do not even question because it allows them an acceptable level of comfort. This why the tyranny of the petty and mundane takes expression through the number of people who want just one little thing. Of course, what they fail to understand is that that one little thing is just one among a hundred other people in my life that want “just one little thing”.

To clarify this for you: say I was to decide one day that I’ll just give in to the pressure and treat this like hobby: something I do when everyone just happens to be done with me. Now how much of this do you think I be able to do? In other words, you can’t just expect the social system we live in (dominated by producer/consumer Capitalism) to just let us pursue our higher self; you have to fight for it.

But here I find myself in a situation in which I have all these people telling where I’m going to be and when with no regard to other things I have to deal with (including the pursuit of my higher self that justifies my point A to point B) and hearing the crack of the whip in the guise of one simple word: selfishness (my god, man! It is your mother). And, of course, I am obligated to act out of unselfishness while watching everyone else (most importantly the healthcare system) involved exploit her sickness to further their interests: mainly money. This is why Capitalism rejects the notion of providing the help we need here, such as providing her with the transportation to all the appointments she needs to get to, because it serves the selfishness involved in Capitalism (the profit mongers) better to not offer the service (less money out of their pocket) while delegating the responsibility to those closest to her and acting liking the only thing at issue is the selfishness of those closest to her.

And I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg here, sweetheart. Still, you can see the source of my resentment.


Return to “General Philosophical Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests