Metrics and the production of uncertainty

If there is ‘nothing’ that supports us, what happens?  People take advantage.

REPOST: 
It would seem that the aim of a neoliberal approach is to produce uncertainty which then stimulates competitive entrepreneurial activity. The more uncertain people are, the more they are likely to be pushed and prodded into value production. The presence of competition is aimed at making us feel uncertain about what will happen, how […]

https://syndaxvuzz.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/metrics-and-the-production-of-uncertainty/

Advertisements

Is “privilege” like Original Sin?

Imteresting.  The ‘Priviledged Subject’ is a motif that indeed has been a logical fault for some time. It goes: How can yoy know this. And,  everyone has equal access. Its been like something you cannot assert; every argument must be accessable to everyone in potential (Of education, effort, etc…)

But im more inclined for 2 route if meaning that cannot be traversed. ( more on that later)

REPOST:

I direct your attention to a short piece on Allthink by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian: “Privilege: The Left’s Original Sin“.  Their thesis is cute, and makes some sense: the Authoritarian Left’s notion of “privilege”, which establishes a hierarchy of victimhood, is analogous to religion’s Original Sin. You can read it in 5 minutes, but […]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/is-privilege-like-original-sin/

The Atlantic: Free will is an illusion, but we need to keep that illusion

An example of a real overdetermination of terms. There are no illusions. The argument and fashion say nothing but what is fashionable. But that is Not all there is, only what a particular teleological view shows. 

But here it is; if you are already chooing a side — uh… Um. .

Well im sure the Atlantic is filled with super intelligent philosophers …

Here. Determine for yourself if your opinion is determined…

Wait, i mean.. Um

Shit.  (Fkg intellectual idenity capitalists.)

REPOST: 

Yes, I know I’m writing about two Atlantic pieces in one day, but so be it: such are the laws of physics. The second piece, much better than the article on FGM, is an essay by Stephen Cave, “There’s no such thing as free will but we’re better off believing it anyway.” I’ll try to be […]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/the-atlantic-free-will-is-an-illusion-but-we-need-to-keep-that-illusion/
If you still are determined in your choice of opinion perhaps my (shameless gratuitous self promotion –  i cant help it ) book , coming soon) will help you see through the haze.

What Lies Beneath?

There is the geographical notion of ‘deep time’ that is often known in reference to its Christian dispensational model of about 6500 years when the earth was made.

The idea of deep time offered that the Earth was much older and has been developing slowly by regular patterns.

Perhaps there is a certain correspondence between ‘Darkness’ and ‘deep(er) time’? 

REPOST: 

Source: Articles: What Lies Beneath?

https://syndaxvuzz.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/what-lies-beneath/

Modern Scholasticism 

“…to refer to a compendium of authorial works, in mind that such discourses speak or otherwise indicate of some fundemental truth, in the effort to find or discern from them the actual truth, like we need to run out the logical implications of those ancestral works to finally get to the truth we are looking for, as history is an unfolding of disclosure to us of universal secrets of being — yes, i agree; that is a scholasticism repeated in different terms.

We should expect then that we wont be able to notice this for some time…to be able to thereby be able to reconsider what is occurring…if even at all. 

Wouldn’t you agree? ” 

 

— Michelle Kotova. From the 1st talk “Concerning Theoretical Value”. 

Theoretical Ethics.

“Ethics is a logistical problem, Michelle. We may be reacting thru a moral or emotional justification but when it comes down to it — i mean come on. Do you actually love everyone? Actually love all humanity? Ethics in our modern day is a default of not being able to remove whom you disagree with. Diplomacy is the rationale after we realize that extermination is just not logistically feasible.

For example: The lumping of terrorism into ‘all Muslims’ is a reaction — it is a kind of Fruedian slip, a revealing of a suppressed desire that floods over view. Its not that really i might want All Muslims removed. It is that i cant remove the jihadist terrorists. I simply cant destroy them all. Let alone sort out who they might be. They are like heads of a hydra; i would have to destroy the whole animal at once, and this is just plain impossible. 

Simply speaking, people will always react to create the social dissonance we expect in order to justify what we consider some emotional morality that we generalize as ethics…”

        – Young Lee. At the First Talk Concerning Theoretical Value.  

Because I Choose To.

The present state of philosophical effort can be summed up if we are honest: It is less philosophiical and more a Critical Methodology.

The reason for this is found by the insistance of the priviledged subject, the thinker who no matter what discursive arrangments, no matter how passionatly one might assert and wish it, will never be able to argue past or beyond Choice.

This is so much the case that the only way  philosophers can get beyond it is tomake a deal with themselves, and by result a whole institution arises that functions to enforce the limit of what is then an umbrella of failure that reflects the feeble efforts of a bought soul. This is Cypher’s deal.

One has only to watch the movie “The Matrix” to fully understand our current philosophical paradigm.

And then read my earlier post on telos. 

The issue would seem to be that there is the ‘regular’ world (the matrix) and then a ‘real’world. Philosophers either are ‘in the matrix’ attempting to situate what is true of it and how to best negotiate the conditions. Or philosophers have discovered what is ‘actually real’ and attempt also to effect human goodness from ‘being outside’ the matrix.

Most philosophy i come accross stems from one of those two situations, and bothgo back and forth aguing who has the best and more true; and they both argue that there is ‘nothing’ beyond this situation.

And, both posit some ‘grand reckoning’. One finds the reckoning in the great human future at one end, and an actually of God coming down in the form of Christ at the other, and the degradation and disintegration of humanity and its world in the middle.

[Total side: Why do we have a 40 hour work week? Why did the workers agree to a 8 hr day? Why didn’t they hold out for a 4 or 5 hour day? Where are we going so fast? Why does everything need be done so quickly? Does it matter if we colonize Mars in 20 years, 50 or 100? Who is making this call to get everything done so fast? Who is convincing us that competition is the best way? Haven’t we already noticed that the very idea of competition is excluding many excelling and able candidates (see my earlier post)? Answer: Eat the rich. better: If you are one of those people who subscribe to the need to get things done so fast, we should be eating you and making you work our fields. lol Ahhh hahahahahah.  (evil laugh)]

The way out of this nihilistic universe that the Matrix has defined, is to see simply that this dualistic version is incorrect. It should have been noticed right when ‘nothing’ came into view, but instead we resorted to political and ideological critique. In a certain skew with Miellasoux, the question should be

“Why, when we noticed that our current manner of reckoning is founded upon nothingness, did we jump back into the nihilistic arena.”

It is because, as I just said, we cannot chose to not be the central thinker who chooses.

That is, until that no longer happens. It s comic on one hand, but where it is serious, there we have the problem that is reality as One. 

Most everyone will submit whatever is said to the conditions of ‘the matrix’, and will argue the matrix even unto contradiction and beyond. They will uphold their limit.

Hence we have the pass of Bruno Latour, and well as the problematic of Alain Badou, where (paraphrase) the agent of truth must relinquish that truth for the sake of reality.

And hence we have the divergence that merely suggests that we need no longer answer to such limited recall. We are in the process of verification, no longer of proving. 

What we see, then, is that we no longer are aguing over ontology and various aspects of real involvment. We find that we are involved in history, at that, in a defferent teleology.