For Nietzsche the primary lesson and the framework within which his philosophy operated was Schopenhauerian in the sense that intuitive knowing was the object and aim of his philosophy.
The subject of his philosophy was the content and constitutive aspects of this form of knowing, and its approach is premised on the value of rending the veil of abstraction between theoretical and intuitively felt and performed knowledge, knowledge that was significant insofar as it was constitutive of the orientations that produced a sense of identity and meaningfulness of acts in the highly intuitive run of daily existence.
It asserts the primacy of practical reason as the starting point of philosophy.
The primacy of practical reason includes, as its most important end-goal, the rationalization of the intuitive features of daily life from a subjective viewpoint, one that is adequately informed by institutional instruction while able, insofar as it is the ground of independent and subjective fields of experience and correctly judges itself to be so, a independent adopter of reasoned beliefs.
It therefore hopes to train good judgement and a moral sense of responsibility and accountability for the beliefs which underlie, both intuitively and rationally, both individually and collectively our acts. It translates discpline, coercion and punishment into accountability, reason, and choice-based submission.
This ideal level of intersubjectively accomodating, individuating responsibility, coupled with a recognition and acknowledgement, and provisions for the essential animality, anti-rational, anti-truthfulness, and anti-idealistic, and destructive creative capacities of man, is the ONLY definition of Enlightenement progress, and its furtherance is the sole meaining of the half-meaningless life of the word 'civilisation'.
This is also the necessary precondition of a free society.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Note 28
The dualism between existence and essence is essentially characterized by the different modalities involved in what exists and what can be said. This dualism is the reason for the mischaracterization of the relations within the real by corresponding propositions which aim at truth, and on the other hand, the misapplication of the notion of truth of assertions into the real, which remain problematic, and which are mostly held for good reasons that when looked into, cannot be adequately unpacked, nor fully justified.
It is when these reasons lay claim to assertoric truths about the real that motivations for belief-systems merge with present utility to create the image of fact, which forms part of a mediated and coherant system of myths. This is not to deny the underlying Real: it denies in principle the conceivability of truthfulness of that Real to cognizable facts. This is also not to deny the possibility of the correspondence of the Real to those facts, that is, correspondence within the bounds of all possible evidence, since it must necessarily affirm that minimal possiblity as a condition of validity of any statement at all about what is real.
The core myth of which we are concerned is the myth of individualized objectified-subjectivity, which forms the core assumption of the core value - self-development - of the Enlightenment myth.
It is when these reasons lay claim to assertoric truths about the real that motivations for belief-systems merge with present utility to create the image of fact, which forms part of a mediated and coherant system of myths. This is not to deny the underlying Real: it denies in principle the conceivability of truthfulness of that Real to cognizable facts. This is also not to deny the possibility of the correspondence of the Real to those facts, that is, correspondence within the bounds of all possible evidence, since it must necessarily affirm that minimal possiblity as a condition of validity of any statement at all about what is real.
The core myth of which we are concerned is the myth of individualized objectified-subjectivity, which forms the core assumption of the core value - self-development - of the Enlightenment myth.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Note 27
Man as functional item.
All individuals are created with a unique psychological profile.
This unique profile is manifest in personal preference, personal interpretative outcomes, and personal needs.
The genetic pool of the being is evolutionarily tested by the conditions which impinge on the individual as mediated by the demands of environment, by the demands of society.
Society is a collection of individuals and their interactions with one another, reflecting both the living forces within the individuals that constantly actualize, that is, that serve as the bridge between past fact and the arbitrariness of present force, and the historical institutional agreements and unagreed coercive structures that have formed the ground on which one functions, on which one understands one's own functioning, and on which the re-interpretation of the present by living force always receives form from which to alter the present while preserving it.
Society functions as an organizational construct based on the possibility of rationalized social interactions that have been tested by the factors of power, of order, of satisfaction of mutually agreed and of granted rights.
Social constructs are innately unstable if not based on a certain set of real needs and the common interpretation of those needs. It is the commonness of the need, and the commonness of the belief system which re-interprets these needs without removing them, but securing and re-inforcing them instead, that forces the individual to define his role in terms of the functions he can play with regards to the Other. He conceives of his needs socially, and not only that, the solution is social - he has no sustainance from the environment itself.
That is, all thought is functional by working through intersubjectivities to create an interpretation of needs that functionalizes the individual, that applies his understanding and his capacities, and shapes his development, for the purpose of fulfilling common needs.
We interpret things in our ways, and the contrast in interpretations correspond to the needs that exist and want to be felt within the society that nurtures a sensitivity to those needs in the first place.
Of course, the point is that the individual is a means to a single end, the reconciliation of the subjective with the objective. The subjective need is a seperate existence for which all else is means. The outer always exists as a canvas for something to exist in terms of the inner. Insofar as the outer has been manipulated, has been made the object of attention, and the object of agency, the outer exists as an extension of the inner, and the advance of power consists in shaping, re-distorting, and increasing the variety of configurations of symbols of power to allow for the flourishing of individuals over the scarcity of bounded objectivity. Of course, the democracy of human needs provides an ample, and a sure insurance, for the satisfaction of absolute power over many human lives - but humans have thrived precisely because of the variety of powers which they have been able to pursue. In fact, it is precisely the creativeness of man that is required and has allowed for the flourishing of power over things that are mental, over conditions that are constructed and over tastes and nuances which have been trained so as to allow for the increasing complexity of the conditions which will generate outlets where none in fact is needed. Opinion leaders will continue to spur development: it is by defintion a competitive exercise. This understanding within a paradigm of power.
But what about the notion of a society with needs of its own? That is, the reverse view, where intersubjectivity is not only a fog of opinion, but is in fact, a living force which shapes the individual and gives him bearing? Here we have the picture of man as society - the tribal man - here we conduct an exercise of anthropology of oneself, at least within the limits of our understanding, on the basic premise that the living force of the meanings through which man exists in relation to his self-understanding is based on his relation to his external environment, and by definition, the living force of society.
All individuals are created with a unique psychological profile.
This unique profile is manifest in personal preference, personal interpretative outcomes, and personal needs.
The genetic pool of the being is evolutionarily tested by the conditions which impinge on the individual as mediated by the demands of environment, by the demands of society.
Society is a collection of individuals and their interactions with one another, reflecting both the living forces within the individuals that constantly actualize, that is, that serve as the bridge between past fact and the arbitrariness of present force, and the historical institutional agreements and unagreed coercive structures that have formed the ground on which one functions, on which one understands one's own functioning, and on which the re-interpretation of the present by living force always receives form from which to alter the present while preserving it.
Society functions as an organizational construct based on the possibility of rationalized social interactions that have been tested by the factors of power, of order, of satisfaction of mutually agreed and of granted rights.
Social constructs are innately unstable if not based on a certain set of real needs and the common interpretation of those needs. It is the commonness of the need, and the commonness of the belief system which re-interprets these needs without removing them, but securing and re-inforcing them instead, that forces the individual to define his role in terms of the functions he can play with regards to the Other. He conceives of his needs socially, and not only that, the solution is social - he has no sustainance from the environment itself.
That is, all thought is functional by working through intersubjectivities to create an interpretation of needs that functionalizes the individual, that applies his understanding and his capacities, and shapes his development, for the purpose of fulfilling common needs.
We interpret things in our ways, and the contrast in interpretations correspond to the needs that exist and want to be felt within the society that nurtures a sensitivity to those needs in the first place.
Of course, the point is that the individual is a means to a single end, the reconciliation of the subjective with the objective. The subjective need is a seperate existence for which all else is means. The outer always exists as a canvas for something to exist in terms of the inner. Insofar as the outer has been manipulated, has been made the object of attention, and the object of agency, the outer exists as an extension of the inner, and the advance of power consists in shaping, re-distorting, and increasing the variety of configurations of symbols of power to allow for the flourishing of individuals over the scarcity of bounded objectivity. Of course, the democracy of human needs provides an ample, and a sure insurance, for the satisfaction of absolute power over many human lives - but humans have thrived precisely because of the variety of powers which they have been able to pursue. In fact, it is precisely the creativeness of man that is required and has allowed for the flourishing of power over things that are mental, over conditions that are constructed and over tastes and nuances which have been trained so as to allow for the increasing complexity of the conditions which will generate outlets where none in fact is needed. Opinion leaders will continue to spur development: it is by defintion a competitive exercise. This understanding within a paradigm of power.
But what about the notion of a society with needs of its own? That is, the reverse view, where intersubjectivity is not only a fog of opinion, but is in fact, a living force which shapes the individual and gives him bearing? Here we have the picture of man as society - the tribal man - here we conduct an exercise of anthropology of oneself, at least within the limits of our understanding, on the basic premise that the living force of the meanings through which man exists in relation to his self-understanding is based on his relation to his external environment, and by definition, the living force of society.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Facebook Thoughts 1
What is Facebook for? Its for connecting with people you know on the web.
Its for turning the web and internet surfing, which has taken a life of its own as a lifestyle trend, as something you must do because it fills a need in real life, into something more familiar. It humanizes the web.
The web is a confusing, repetitive, boring, place. It is an essentially boring and inhuman place. Yes, it interests you, but it interests you only within the context of your boredom and frustration in real life. You wouldn't be on the internet if you had real stuff to do, or if the world was in your control. You'd be using it like a upgraded form of email, if life was swell. The internet is another medium of art, art being a re-creation of reality in higher forms to satisfy something lacking in the real. (In fact, the internet is THE medium of art of today, websites being hyper-democratic art forms: one can on this basis alone predict the drive to aesthetic complexity of website design as architectural spaces of communication.)
Virtual is an always an inferior reality, but it is a superior form to non-reality, which is its role to substitute.
Social networking works on this essential frustration - it is promise of socialist utopia in its most inferior imaginable form.
Now, you will dismiss: this is the rambling of a sad loner; one who does not realize that Facebook is the most efficient means of concerning yourself adequately intimately with the life of a large circle of busy and interesting friends, and therefore with the life of the community as a whole - it is an information bank and an actionable tool in the social arsenal. Perhaps. I concede. But it is both.
Then: A measure of the degree of social deficit and deficits in other modes of social interaction. Lovely.
Its for turning the web and internet surfing, which has taken a life of its own as a lifestyle trend, as something you must do because it fills a need in real life, into something more familiar. It humanizes the web.
The web is a confusing, repetitive, boring, place. It is an essentially boring and inhuman place. Yes, it interests you, but it interests you only within the context of your boredom and frustration in real life. You wouldn't be on the internet if you had real stuff to do, or if the world was in your control. You'd be using it like a upgraded form of email, if life was swell. The internet is another medium of art, art being a re-creation of reality in higher forms to satisfy something lacking in the real. (In fact, the internet is THE medium of art of today, websites being hyper-democratic art forms: one can on this basis alone predict the drive to aesthetic complexity of website design as architectural spaces of communication.)
Virtual is an always an inferior reality, but it is a superior form to non-reality, which is its role to substitute.
Social networking works on this essential frustration - it is promise of socialist utopia in its most inferior imaginable form.
Now, you will dismiss: this is the rambling of a sad loner; one who does not realize that Facebook is the most efficient means of concerning yourself adequately intimately with the life of a large circle of busy and interesting friends, and therefore with the life of the community as a whole - it is an information bank and an actionable tool in the social arsenal. Perhaps. I concede. But it is both.
Then: A measure of the degree of social deficit and deficits in other modes of social interaction. Lovely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)