Nag, nag, nag

https://twitter.com/tim_sainburg/status/1431506124151296000?s=09

Since there is a nightmare outside the sleep dream.

I do not divide humanity up from any data. Either way the transistion to early human in Africa, that then dispersed to meet up with proto-early human clusters from much earlier dispersals, is our origin. The modern human, us, emerges from those contacts. My point was that though the biology of the body in regard to parasites is very interesting, and more to do with the evolution of parasites, there is nothing that can squeeze down the brain of anything to one symbiotic or dependent on parasites - excepting other biomic links especially around the pituitary. There are no divisions in the human race that are not individual. Differences are from chance practices and chemical environments. Those differences are no different from mere familial six generation chromosomal shuffles.
I'm not read up enough to give all that a supporting lexicon.

The fascism that weans wishes for racial distinctions is the childishness of trying to appeal to, and imitate, elders that have evaded a need to learn. Such a child aspires to the state of blanketing out edification, having a system, that attends to maintaining ignorance, surround them and distinguish them as superior. One can speculate at the varieties of experience that would compell such a stasis.

Strange Attractions

I'd guess the deadly pursuit is due to my guestimation abilities, and the provisional hypotheses I then deconstruct.
Aside from the various abuses I've received since being born of Tiger Bay (a euphemism as I've no kick gained from all this ethno-identity fashion) and no doubt tracked by Vatican systems, force majeure grants too much that ignores the medium... Aside from that the big issue, that has retired me from life in general, is that I succumbed - so the complaint that alcohol makes me passive to atmospheres (empathetic in the original Lotze definition) - to neurotics with ambiguous reliance on an atmosphere of violence. Hence the icon that Picasso defends in the Mammoth 8 platform.

I have always been pro-women - and wonder if this astonishes the fascists so much that they think I'd take their side as a substitute if they can damage all my relations with women - I'm pro trans though am not exactly surprised that male trans are not considered so friendly in some persons experiences. Always. Think about that. Same with hostility to racism (I remark on Nation-State valorisation of "tradition" etc that makes for idiocy, no question) animal rights and ecology. No exaggeration though some very odd interuptions that indicate that empathy as operative when exhausted by combinatorial exploitations.
Too much is imitated of the worst males shaped by the valorisations, by females. Though they to are captured by this as interuptions to all else they decide.
I detest the worst males trying to scapegoat me, or others, over their own oft familialy energised exploitations of females or males. That happens. I don't expect there's anything more than letting people live and learn, its the proximate history at work not the person where the lessons are to be found. You can't be someone else, though if your kicks are in surveillance and gaslighting you probably aren't anyone at all. You still who you are, only a name.

Intuition

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-57.htm

The usual footnote to spontaneous entries in @247ofthat on twitter.

I claim - whilst waiting for a better term - that intuition is from memory. The above piece - I'm not knowingly a subscriber to the late philosopher - helps me argue what it is that obscures - Spinoza dodging credit to art; prefering the Turing stripes of crystallized time? - the "snobs' ESP".
Our bodies (I'm aware that I'm suspected of Cartesianism. I'm with the notion, whilst Johnathan Ree's work hasn't gotten my full attendance, that Descartes was simply as inept a materialist as the new ones are now. I think that accounts enough for the persistence of the triadism body, soul, world that it doesn't take a genius to note. Indeed the medium of theartre, its simulcration by the novel, makes Descartes just a typical inferentialist trying to sell an instrumentalism?) are more than the human has ever been, as each to their own. This stimulation, holobiontic expansion, haptic immediacy, hyperrealism (I do owe some credit to Eco  for my early acquitance with partitioning off consumerist spirits (to paraphrase Keynes and new-ageism that also persists - I have a spirit algorithm, maybe) has left me challenged for a simile. That's clutter of representations, nothing new to the human. Consider Ockham, Scotus and others. It is striking that Augustine is the one who claims an autobiographic memory, and the body is its tension. That's to say - I don't doubt some Shakespeare is evading me; Why wouldn't it be Cymbeline rather than Titus Andronicus? - the drift that the New Historicism has dessicated into anti-woke new (old) conservative leftish like Fabian Hobbesians with flotsam began on this matter that is a serious problem in Marx's "science", the way of the flesh etc, is what our progress - human - is all of only: technology. A different dialectic, synthesis (that old trinity) has held us in a cognitive stance that, at least we are better for getting what body does, shuffles through representations. So to the point: the body so has become a technology.
At the end of that point I insist that intuition is from our memory, not "imagination" and not symbolic dependent as much as breaking symbols is the next step, that first step that makes a difference...

Lila R Gleitman's conclusions are interesting in respect of shattering the Mirror-Stage fixation (something that Marc Hauser, of regrettable circumstances maybe to near to truth, also got caught in?). I also note Critical Theorist Andrew Feenberg who remains in action as a wanderer in the shadow of progress, though I'm still to catch up with that turn out of the Marxist cul-de-sac.

Anyways. My hourly thought, after every minute on ecological crises, you bet, is with the power game played on the people of Afghanistan. Tip, China and Saud are quite the pals and the US would get post-Putin Russia out of this mess. I don't dismiss Biden has the Pentagon geared to an outcome that is may be provoked by Taliban stupidity. The situation is terrifying for Afghans.

Competency

I may need change the term. My vocabulary is in the balance of a prime factor, shifting to lefthanded in the negotiation with parkinson's. I was never a succesful communicator.

A particular of my opposition to Kant(ian) is that it demands memory, the categorical imperative, and one committed to a single persona that has to be remembered. So you are out, segregated, if you fail with memory toward the imperative, and you will fall foul of the imperative by acting on a memory that others deem errorful or in a ill will.

So firstly my version is that you only have to think about what you do. You may not remember, you may not be much able to remember enough before you act. That anyone - there's no private or public prosecution distinction here (police are for being on call to deal with troublings, to find and apprehend the troubling, to assist or dismiss citizens arrest (as per, give or take the typical definition) - can you bring you to trial.

The sense of competency does not at all mean you can be found generally competent and therefore let off the charge - which no matter how complicated would be on simple codification - for the point is to establish if your general or specific competency is employed by you to pretend otherwise on an issue, or it is entirely a pretense and your general competency is pretense. The specific offence, in terms of what results from establishing the status of your competency is prior to trial agreed by the aggrieved and a judge. The examination in trial, which needs jurors capable of examining the charge and those called on to give evidence or examine, can allow the judge to alter the charge. The aggrieved can also be brought to trial within that trial.
Outside of those deemed a danger to others who would face forseeable permanent incarceration, it is the restriction of liberty, wealth accumulation or specific employments that are to be established through trial by the judge.

This is simple sketch of what I think the law entirely absents from scrutiny. A difficulty is jury selection, I'd guess it should be voluntary and, maybe, limited to those who have been prosecuted, even successfully.

I haven't exercised much on this. I'd rather some did. Yes, I have read a lot of theory on justice. I've also seen the hits and misses of legal systems and I am persuaded by calls to think how it can be with police reduction, not as numbers only as activities and powers. I'm still not seeing the sociologists circling on this enough.

I'm doing a these things as footnotes to twitter @247ofthat, by the way.

23:7:21 Maybe a near elephant pregnancy duration since I was (re)introduced - and tweeted - to the existence of Pudendorf.
So this lecture - I've skipped the q&a, where the speaker may position himself - is as good as it gets (unless you've a lot of money, or a supportive dept) and gets how it is tough to track Pudendorf. Note I'm not aligned to Natural Justice. I've read of Grotius, it is pretty much the old story - well, democracy is there etymologically - of the maritime rule departing from what would be a pentecostal adherence to the chicanery of the 12 tables. Dedicatees of the maddening in divine arts and "symbolic" will have clues that science and shipping were a solid compact, a secrecy, before the Harrison chronometer controversy. And that I've said there's a novel in that, I fear that horror Neal Snowcrash get one squeezed out. Pynchon, in which we trust?
The link https://youtu.be/fC-W7tPLp9c

Le Chatelier

It is worrying to have the thought that history is record of reversion to physical reactions that achieve a salience of specific power relations closed to dependency on general conditions. That, in sum, there's more yet to The Myth of Metals.

Extending this to an unconscious systematizing, a quite independent mimicry that holds power up by social practices, meaning the power of the somatic is not so ridiculous.
Though I only the latter matrices in mind originally, that it had (all that poetic proto science of alchemy) arrived by culture absorbing other unexplained near everyday - naturally metal and ceramic craftspersons would note as much as horticulturing and brewers including apothecary herbalists. No doubt things would be put down to astrological influences etc.

So we have a somewhat mindfucking notion of the phracking of power.

Even if it were the basic biopower my argument is that it has to supplemented by practices, to conserve the substrates, maintain the vectors. So the only difference it makes - except, the example, to gold markets - in this moment is that it is too mindfucky. The solemn admission of our vulnerability to biological events and psychological frames was much easier.

Except I can't unsee what was before the mere haphazard strategies and tactics of wealth accumulators. Today I learnt of the railroad builders, the stock market dependent, buying the rights to canal sections and constructing weirs simply to stop the access by barges, in Britain. And I think that's the kind of thing, the land inherited by descendents, the filling of the House Of Lords even now, that matters. Matter, the Chaterlier Principle, is not a top down particular determinant, as if some extradimensional power. Though it is, I would go as far as to say, rigged into that position. All that is gold is not only glittering?

A section that may continue to take apart New Historicism

I may not be altogether clued up on this so I'm going to start, I write this only to note the below, this entry as one that gets updated (yes I know that is possibly remote possibility).

The Dr Stock matter. If the dr is convinced of New Historicism then the dr has made it god and, as I tweeted long ago (@247ofthat previously 247humanLuhmann), the dr has a complicated relationship with a deity force. Though obvious in the participants of NH, it may be, there is that deconstruction to be made of what is it that a monocultural account of living, of something in fantasy yet for reality to capable of (a suitable term) engendering fantasy? I do mean the phrase in its plurality. So much I expect has opened on this already. Not least the historical growth of "white" as ethnos largely through the Macaulayian I suspect. We cannot overlook the impression made on other societies by the technological advantages a faith (where doubtless the hypocriscy was noted as mysteriously part of the central dogma) that was conquering them. I'm pointing to a universality that the dr has ambivalence in. We all do, it just depends on our command of leisure utilitising psychoses. I think, in Veblen way, that leisure and Horney neurosis are the same thing - I cannot state they are synonomous given that I've no desire to bring a utilitarian ethic over the definitions.
You may guess correctly that existential questions are the matter, especially as to the way the agent, the subject, suffers a moral journey - one we cannot save them from, as it were - through this complex I'd guess is the animal element, of many or the only, that makes us a different animal.

Whilst saying pluralism, and nothing of science.
I do commend the Praeger view to replace the Baconian so far as any life science goes. The blue skies of physics and chemistry, however, needing for their own purposes methodological experiments (no, not on animals either) are more Praeger-like because the distinctly human control of material is really their pursuit. Plurality of analyses of data, of methods, is as far as science can allow that, and especially on anything living. Allowing algorithms into the wild of the web or releasing traceable contaminants into populations or even allowing microwave technologies or other electromagnetic systems to be deployed on the grounds that there is no sure connection with biological harms.
I'm not going into STS beyond this, which I use Metho-Presentism to argue for.
Praeger was an irish founder of the British Ecological Society. Presently I fear I don't have the literature to back up my claim on observing the life form as it is niche making, with that being what is living.

(tired)

Need to Get On

I cannot stand down on destruction of obstacles understood as products of participation in a system that reproduces ignorance.
Further to sparce comments I am going share, on Kant, here is a simple chronology of polemical quality.

Before 1991 I was told I had Nietzschean approaches to belief, and Derridaen ability at media. N was mere commonplace qoutidian character to me, I saw the Derrida Amnesty Lecture on tv. So I read all over postmodernism, poetry had prepared me for the moves I read of.
In 92 I first read, and it was sort disappointingly of agreement so no big hit, Mirror of Nature. Of course it left me with a reading list, how did we get to this argument, if we did, by philosophy reading off culture? I didn't have much to save from S&Z, read in 93/4.

When I take on Aesthetics I still haven't headed into Derrida. A crucial and odd moment - I lost the very short essay - where I had no confidence in exacting rejection of Kant's aesthetic. Turned out I would've appeared to have lifted it from Derrida, but it is obvious to anyone not prepared to be a segregationist in any way except against segregationists. So I did see one early piece by Derrida, and saw it as the way that fitted how things go through us, how language coils and springs. So I got some Derrida, and clown critics of this and that citing Heidegger converged with Derrida and his problematising of Heidegger's, actually, death opposed to life as prospect of conceptualizing aside the insistent meaning proclivity that is believed as human making.... "This will not do"

No, it won't Herr H, Marti? Will it.

It has taken this long, without the resources supposed granted the academic - thank heaven I am untrained - to lay out a simple and direct opposition to Kant that doesn't rely on all that could be read. Heidegger's Davos assault needs Kant reading to be followed to the letter, and the taking of the architectonic by force has awkward moments that enlargement can only be made of by reading further, or before, still more?

Of late I have only where I would have accused of plagiarizing from, The Truth In Painting, that prizes open the crude encryption to truth. I've not consulted my notes, they rest around the troubles of interpretation, translation, from Kant's aesthetics which are crucial to his entire oeuvre.

So here I present a different perspective, one may say a...

I stopped there, weeks ago.
...

So this is something on Kant's Idea for a Universal History.

First off - aside from even the gospel of Luke has the messiah (or Beelzebul he says himself) note that reading the weather isn't so difficult - is Kant's mixed metaphors in Theses 1. A guiding thread, reason, would be for finding a way, getting led (a way back is the gist) more or less in a manner of speaking blind. So straight off Kant considers us as Chance, if we consider Kant a wise person. So, ok, Nature left nipples on the male form planning on us wanting to change sex, or just genderfluid, it has made a fine topological feat of the human, according to Kant. It isn't anything else plainly tied into proprioception that held on with the processes we are, one is, having use to nature to be environmentally malleable - a regular Tiresias - and concentrating, not by chance, by human preferences, on the ease of not evolving some other electromagnetic field sensitive  - somewhere nitrogen can put metals for the job - when it only needs use the same format. It isn't reason - and Kant has that the defining confinement as ordaining the human - opposed to blind randomness. Kant is doing Pascal's Wager, presumably this is not so coded allegiance to Calvinism (I'm aware other candidates are available, Judaism to Islam) whilst jibing toward to the Vatican and the Orthodox that dig straightforward miracles and don't care for a reasonable Creator? Next a Hobbesian move makes Thesis 2, we get that no religion that doesn't recognise - enforce the recognition - of individuals needing collectivity - as opposed to declared special ambassadors to god - isn't of the race?
Note Spinoza has already done the grind down on Nature as God, though, I contend, he appears to know it's Art. And Kant shows his intuitive hand on that, as I began to this entry with.
These 3 is outright Locke. Free Will, and here we get Kant means without cost. It's a deal. You get to enjoy yourself - that's the implication that in his Aesthetic is Beautiful aka the wild. This is not only a recapitulation of post-Abrahamic theologies, it is positively the mindset of fundamentalists. Now I'd say that Kantianism has helped that along, especially in early C20th USA, if you are mindful of prohibition which was escorted by the Harrison Narcotics Act. (I'll put in a reference to Coontz (?) on this).
Thesis 4 We get it, Kant is actually experiencing sociopathy. It would be nice if as that Aristotleian animal we every did manage, socially, to conserve and transmit learning. Plain fact is that requires artifacts and more often than not indivuduals in relative isolation to their peers, albeit some community of some sort accompanies them. I guess we should remind ourselves it's an Ideal.
Theses 5 Freedom is a spruce plantation. And Kant sucks up to artists. I seriously doubt, and it proves my point on 4, that Kant got how much the Acadian type does practically coppice...
Theses 6 You can see how Heidegger got his cue, and even sent spies in on Wittgenstein (it is alleged). We've suddenly lost that constitution thing? Gone a bit Hobbesian, again, hasn't it?
Thesis 7 Yes. And Adam Smith isolationism. Though evidently Kant wants to cut away his Scots roots. This all becomes Weber, later. Draw lines, limit travel (especially for living). Nothing quite drives a desire for wealth as the need to sate curiousity and, more importantly, to be able to escape a failing State. Kant gives the luxury yacht - or train or space capsule - full endorsement. The problem isn't on having Sovereigns - the superrich fancy (already in tumblr Existais, of Hobbes. Shall supply reference) themselves as much as - this is the nub of it, the social animal adds and subtracts on cues with crude reflexes that the superrich will emulate - the Thespian Paradox - of measuring its self-image by fantasized correspondence to values, morals. Deception leads to breakdown of reading causation, of even the self (that I define as the mode of working for superego which can amount to plain survival - you have to find a workaround you really do).
Thesis 8 He's f-ed up that Idea. And there's no plan. Still plenty believe they found it.
Thesis 9 what arrives is political science. I have Methodological Presentism (no, Kant is know nothing. Providence is a kind of who dares wins, the trouble is the goal set rather than waiting, prepared to wait, and be able to change sensitivity. Anytime, anywhere, there's bodies alive enough to gather information that can say we are in an anarchy of matter that "culture" gets used, by those frustrated by Creationism, to hide away. The superrich know, somewhere in their post-encephalitic nerves (honestly, don't go for bullying trickery, Nietzsche's lesson from the martial school etc Immune systems and psyche don't toughen up or collapse into submission to others, you just get a herd of idiocy locked in a merely symbolic domesticity - same goes for hygiene) that they won't be having any fun without the poor, so the poor's need for a Nature story, one that always says you need leadership or else..., points to putting it, yeah it, into culture (any will do) so the superrich can get new kicks or just justify old habits because the poor are the optimum in reflexes. The rich aren't stupid, they are only incredibly unconscious with the thinnest consciousness possible.

Philosophers only need lay out how moiety goes in philosophies? (I looked at a slice of Stiegler just now, I can't remember what I recoiled from presently, I'll find out) That's what I don't see so much of when it is of some field or other, eg science.
I shall be doing the Pure Reason and Groundwork, intended to all of sudden just before McGoey and Bacevic gave the Kantian inheritance the name Fatalistic Liberalism which tunes to my Locke pickings. For now the Locke lint, Sartre's eyelashes included, may only be examined on twitter, a thread (ha, ha) from the prosey opening acknowledge of the M+B appellation.