[this is uncorrected voice dictation…]
We might imagine that there is no going back, that there is no effective check to bring things in balance, no conscious awareness that will allow any sort of uprising which will or can disrupt The motion of the world.
Because we are concerning here not so much with what might be true of humanity, but more what humanity perceives; we are dealing with what is real. And what is real is that humanity will always usurp whatever state of affairs into its proper construct of meaning. And this construct is based in a distancing of the individual human being from the operating universe, and it is from this point this functional divestiture, by which reality proceeds. In this we always want to break up from the conglomerate powers. We always want to assert an essential freedom; even as we might argue there is no free will that very argument is based in the presumption of freedom and thinking about how to consider things. We in the west want to look at the history of the world and see that somehow we have brought enlightenment to the world, freedom to the oppressed cultures and societies, liberation where there was only drudgery. Indeed this is reality; for every despot there will be a hero. Even if 1000 years goes by hundred despotic rule eventually that lineage that tradition will die will go away in favor of what is not despotic. The hungry will always be fed or they will die; if they don’t die then they will be fed. Systems situations and manners of proceeding into the world will always be set aside for what is perceived as righteous and proper. If it is not proper then what is improper becomes proper. That is until it is seen is not proper. Humanity will endure through these vacillations regardless of how we want to define it.
But reality must have it that these definitions refer to essential situations, situations that refer to choice over good and evil and the larger ethical world.
And due to this want, due to this real mandate, there will always be a power structure of the few over the many; presently this power structure is defined and organized around capital but to be more specific and simple, money is power.
While some people may not agree with this or even look upon it as some sort of unethical situation that we need to correct, whether we call it capital or money or some other term that we haven’t invented yet that will always be a meaningful unit for comparison by which human beings will become more powerful than others.
The real situation is this way because there are individuals that are not concerned with these unitsof power that we call money in such a way to organize their being in a hierarchical manner, which is to say to have power over another. The facets of this unconcern is not really the issue, in fact it is the disorganization of such units of meaning by which certain people may consolidate their power through capitalization. R concern and the issue right now is that they are indeed are people whose main concern are the organization of these units of power, and due to this unequality this inherent difference in value and concern, those who are concerned with the organization of power will amass always more power. Inasmuch as there may be more than one person in this class with us have groups of people that function together for the purpose of the organization of power, and so whether or not one person or one or more of these groups get challenged by what we should call the masses of disconcern, The very nature of the organization of the units of power continues to amass such units and continues to maintain an established such organization despite the individual failure.
This is all to say that the real world functions within a perception of checks and balances, but that the system of power has developed in such a way to be beyond checking or balancing. In fact it is built in such a way that the checking and the balancing is relied upon, The view that such checks and balances actually have an effect upon the organization of power is relied upon for further consolidation and amassing of power.
We must find then that the Enlightenment was a moment in the process of human consciousness coming to terms with itself in the universe. Which is to say consciousness as a manifestor of meaning is coming to terms with the determination of such meaning, which is to say of the negation of the transcendental clause.
Yet we should keep in mind that reality always usurps meaning for itself, and regardless of what consciousness maybe revealing unto itself, there will always be two routes upon objects. One route that lives through the denial involved in the faith in the transcendental clause as an agent of transcendence, and one route that sees the truth of human existence and develop a true science of the human being in existence. This latter occurs through it necessary divergence of common understanding. Where is this has taken place on some rudimentary and elementary levels, such as science has to do with the long game which occurs over many lifetimes many generations.
Issac Asimov in his Foundation books May have been more correct than anyone would dare assert.
Election 2016 Bonus: The Long Overdue Death of the Mainstream Media
In a revealing statement earlier this month, the mainstream media admitted it would never recover from its irresponsible and negligent coverage of the 2016 presidential election.
corporate media, Donald Trump, Media, Hillary Clinton