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.

The Order of Terms

Hihttps://www.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469649917.001.0001/upso-9781469649917-chapter-003

If, like me, you haven't read Black Marxism whilst accepting the critique that defines capitalism as racial, then we wonder on this thread that Robinson extends which system theorises practically a necessity of Christianity.
We know Cedric's father was pastor, I haven't researched into this fact. I am still quite challenged by the patriarchial/genealogical implications of the penultimacy of TToO. Robinson is, and this gives appropriately a panorama to Sino and African philosophy possibly pressing on the pre-Christian world - after all what is Scholasticism without Augustine? - as followed by a recapitulation of the erasure that is largely all of Robinson's "subject... that's there".
Where I am troubled is not the paternal antagonism (or not) that continues with the figure of liberation in material living (as opposed to Buddha?) by acceptance of allegory on morals and a dependence on dialectic with an elect, it is how much does Robinson fail to critique Kant?
Much is made of Rawls as collaborator with the neo-liberal project (the same goes at Foucault) and that may index the milieu that supported Robinson?
Without Robinson's own words, or rather (link will be provided) Walcottian Adamising, I cannot be certain of his preferred apprehension of Nature. Only that the gospel surrender to higher and Marx's science of externalising inner nature are convergent, nowhere more so than by Kant, after Aristotle, and they also make Marx more than Hegel (I think, as English makes explicit, that GWF gets that all goes to abstraction, thence recovered with meaning and no longer need we get fraught on this as Derrida pretty much works on it rigorously) so I'd guess Robinson argues that Marx gets lost by Hegel.

We are left with what are we really talking about with characteristic Capital(ism)?
Dalston gets to the appearance of a spirit opposed to chance, whereas the elites that we suppose are committed to that end remain, each, subjects that are there. I seriously dispute Habermas. The top draws on the lower for their personal motoring as much as for profits that signify reward, and the body that no less serves a governance in their fantasies, for the sequestering of surplus value which they, by all accounts, think of, if not fear, as infinite.

https://offshootjournal.org/the-interminable-catastrophe/

For "given"?

https://twitter.com/EcsuOist/status/1402782753993592836?s=09

So you stick things in rodents brains to (in the omitted practioner's original hypothesis: justification of lobotomy, when psychosis was considered assimilatable by meds rather than as a symptom of that expression of culture, particular breakdowns that were the result of authorative abuse) find what psychoanalsis gets half of.
The total guff of "the mind is embodied in the world". If anything works along those terms the world is in inthe body and it gives mind to matter, surrenders it as it were in order to sequester information.

Indicators

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715184?s=09

The above is a new paper of a sort aspired to in analytic philosophy now. I haven't read through it, only the thread of tweets appended to the posting tweet.

I don't entirely get why philosophy allows this stuff under it's title. It doesn't draw from life at all so much as it does technology. Philotechny?

No matter. I'm interested in questioning, along the same lines, if memory is triggered, if it triggers. This is the zone.
I'm beginning to think that memory only indicates a process has become operational by deeper somatic switches.
The advantage of this, to be tested for, is can/do memories replace memories for the same processes (how much a process is without its own changes is not be precluded though is another level of detection) because this would be as much as introspection is. And that would say a lot about how we do learn though it is the luck of process triggers over which we may have no conscious control.
Philosophically this remains a prioritisation of individual operation due to unique memory kernel (that would be epigenetic). However philosophically I am only marking out my position against Hobbesian (Cartesian, too), Humean incompletion and thereby Kant onward through phenomenology. I've a lot to do to get out of the pull of phenomenology as, ironically, remembering every schema and the veridical taxonomy is tough.

Truth and Power

http://www.truthandpower.com/blog/blog/politicalphilosophy/the-puzzle-of-power/

In very ordinary way I noted and stated that I regarded power (you know, the stuff of society etc) as imaginary. This was before I accepted Lacan had something to say. What Sluga says and not well enough due to Foucault - he's wrong if there's no irony intended in one of assertions, on politics and family - is interesting.
I don't see representation as incorporated or consolidated with the Symbolic. That's my point. I cannot say the same of the Real, yet it is supporting the Imaginary - or with some memory of it.
The final remark omits to accept that it is possible that for humans nature will ne seperated off. It may still get them, if they at all exist as humans. It is the very absence of power, of agency if you will, that generates this pursuit of control by machines - they argue, sometimes they are only making the machines better at being human, or at least animal - that by all standards revealed so far are not good for humanity in their standardising and selection trajectories.

So, as religions hope and pray, we are pursuing the creation of power that cosmological nature may indeed absorb.

I don't want more of yesterday, today or the tomorrow that representations are delivering as imagined.
That's why the investigation of our spatial needs and uses, archeaology is especially provocative, may even do better to prevent conflict than ai bots with suicide mission quantum direction. Presently those machines are indistinguishable from the humans we imagine hold power.

This is not notes. Sluga, you'll see, does miss the point Foucault held of mobile fields?

Vanishing Mediator

With the day hitting up quantity and the noting of the withness in body (via Laurie Anderson, from AN Whitehead) that are Social Sciences' quests we may say, I decided to glance at this VM notion.

Interesting that Zizek has the jouissance and alt-right link picked up from Lacan that is noted by Copjec.
(Nevermind the Boethius)
Jameson's thing, I know not how Zizek takes it, is naive. I good dose of Annales is needed. I won't elaborate, we have always been modern. What Zizek may get is the jouissance, though it is draw up by the quantity of all else (all the alt-right are excited by, they'll never stop...) exceeding and isolating the probable minority they are. Many just tag along, but they have to remain a minority so needs must, as was obvious with Trump in power.

So if there is something mediating is that isolated, near exposure, minoritisation. The jouissance is a mere vector, the full matrices or infection is total absence of identity, a paranoia that cannot even carry a subject. You'll note the garbled speeches - sometimes they achieve a tremulous rational in written form, quite absent in their speech.

So what mediates is a sense of being a quantity qua quantity? It never was vanishing. That's only an invention of Jameson, trying to save his theorising.

I guess the point is jouissance needs a rethink. The entire fort-da misses a point, and Lacan dissolved mirror stage himself.

I didn't set out to re-do Lacan, I must remind you.

As so often, only some notes.

Much as I

Much as I appreciate... A link will appear.

Discourses - and I wonder about Lacan's formula somewhat more assuredly than I would allow of my own hysteric trajectories - are not The Social Bonds. Each is work, the old double act in equivocation of Marx and Freud on energy, economy. Yeah, yeah. No. I don't know what to say, except something about the social as an ever moving demarcation line.
Life and Death. Analysts talk so certainly that there is universal horizon, or audio range, perhaps a response to a scent - here's thing, they talk in all exclusion of the chemical - of Death, whilst telling us how unique their analysand is. We shan't say anything of a universal receptivity that is Life...

If the Death Drive is a handling of, or footwork, of a particular relation to a common representation. Particular of a personal, even interchangeable, superego. Jouissance is a conformity to a translatable luxury.
The Sinthome is destruction of representation, it's a materialisation. More than a covering by the lamelle (I've forgotten this word) it destroys by exceeding all else? Yet it does this as what the representation excludes?

In Zizek's case, Boris Johnson (a)logic.

I'm still meditating (not literally) on this. The question is what does it mean this body recognition that it is said to be a matter of Life or Death?
Why is it feared as reification of gender binary? Why do the politicised believe that people change society, civilisation apparently, by living in a role that is not different?
Tell me that isn't the Sinthome of theirs, that they are invested in countering change, the big threat to them, their jouissance, by pushing others to distress about, in fact, not changing except in recognition of what always was. The politicised are insisting a lot was only successfully resisted by their making the unchanging, defying all that signifier stuff. Again, no chemistry....

What we have, all told, is that private life (or negative liberty) isn't something affordable by/to most. It is where the fatal dialogue that remains of Boethius cast a shadow enough for a spotlight on the politicians' dialectical torments.
"Private life is a punishment, that's why we resign for personal reasons or family unity"

The Boethius episode is a representation at full force. You won't have to read it because I am. Spoiler: was he executed? And if he was, what was the deal with his sons?
Terrorists are people who didn't get enough art. They need alienation, public, like artists find about their world work.

I don't get what we gain by being deprivated and having to use that to work at the world where we don't have to try rescue everyone alone. To claim ego is about self stuff is a nonsense except un saying you'd need get paid for it if that's what's wanted by so-called social bonds. It's evidently a currency. So back to comparison of Marxian objectivity and Klossowski's voluptous emotion, I guess.

https://youtu.be/y4r2VSDdHvk

SEMF (first few comments fyi)

HiSomeone going on about correspondence (between systems) and normative as matching to reality. I use normative in sarcastic sense, one may say Rylean or TLP overcoming. Normativity just takes what can made to fit with a theory and usually the theory and that use of explanada as explanation keeps it appearing to work.
That's what Boolean does, I don't see that we would fit to a clergyman's attempt, well done of course, to how to think as Biblical exegesis. That some algrebraic moments emerged in the editing and construction to translations is interesting, but humanity probably shouldn't consider it use of thought as summing up to that mereologicality.
This is the problem with trendy talk of plurality in science; it continues openings for the police supported crime as industry, industrial scale crime against humanity and biosphere?
Flack has a good turn around of this with Wheeler's it from bit methodology: you don't need define your terms - supposition of origin, of aim to reduction taken up - to get working on how things work: we won't know ever what got the macaques to this particular coarse graining, we can probably work how coarse grain states have their power (lunkheads using the Macaques as a human practice optimum are not thin on the ground exactly...).

Deutsch, quantum computing shit. Quantum mechanic vibrations, coming at you from every which way, pinch your lips after some hot spice, are going to be that noise. Some chance of getting very far with that as a technology. That's where Wolfram may cut through the noise, but making it is easy. Trying to make not noise is Gernsbackian.
Done for now, more later (or wait as I am for Flack's next paper)

Correction. Was thinking of Bayes. Boole is of course a more interesting person and mathematician. The contension there is with computing, which is important in the context of correspondence. Which is why I was really thinking of Bayes, in the context of normative.
I'm sort of tired. Again.

Representation 1

I note Copjec (Read My Desire) uses the term representation. I'm wondering if what I'm picking up (nothing original from me) as how we can capture representation as this - it would be fungible, as, for instance, eroticism (and what in cynicism?) could be defined beyond Butler's performative among rival theories. I doubts that the performative accounts for anything except some parametering that can't go beyond parametering, is, in this way, a covering of representation (those images do haunt, whatever else) - is the use of the body as if an occupied thing (a'la Descartes and so much more)?
As if we are alien to it and, of course vice versa. Nothing novel. It is easy to forget the body as it is difficult to ignore it.
Butler's latest appears, in interview, to propose the cop problem is that they consider their bodies public property by divine decree. The theological exertions and permutations may have been laid out by Eco, I don't know, as I'm reminded of Catharism among other things.
Because it's not enough to begin taking drives, and/or something we put instinct into shape for or against, something that we made peculiar to choosing to get our own intuition (which we hold heuristically), as these basic clusters of dynamics that are far and wide from our thoughts. They are not neither Real nor real Unconscious. One may say it is all that we could be as Conscious, not much different from abiotic? And this, because taking up the PCE of Wolfram is interesting, would be another covering, culture defeats epigenetics this way I'd claim, of what is working one as a body. Because I've collapsed what is mostly Hume. There's no reason that reason lets us down. There's just nature trying out what it can?

I nearly forgot. Gendering superego, which should have been obvious, as I did, was simply reproducing what is the gendering of nature. Copjec's seeking some change on it. I'm unable to get a reading on it yet, so to speak. It is our lapsus, or only mine?

Laugh

Only saying that you can transplant any damn philosophy (I think, despite the overarching theory, even Plato) onto Wolfram. It's a trivial psychological tick. So if a Kantian says its Kant... oddly Kant sat well with Einstein for some.
I haven't starting barking "it's Derridaen". Forget it. The main point is that there's something more to information, matter making. You could go Heidegger, you couldn't go Lacan? You go Hegel, you couldn't go Foucault? Whatever. It's not so bright to disregard that it doesn't change life questions. It really doesn't unless you want to find a new exclusion policy, if you are a Priti Patel with a thought process fine with genocide or something. Enough.

Have Never Been 2

https://youtu.be/si9iG-093aY

My passing (though it would not pass) attention to Hobbes (albeit I had planned a character for a fiction, for a tv project (the avengers/prisoner with a killer House, I never watched Dexter...)) was started up by this lecture.
I had read essays in German Law Journal on Foucault/Derrida regarding the Sovereign, though I've not gotten to read their works so far. What arrived to me on reading Hobbes - a comparative edition of his works, condensed Leviathan, at this point - was that we should skip Hume as the catalyst to Kant and consider Hobbes, consider Leviathan to be exact.

Latour went on in 2004 to push the thesis of WHNBM, I tried to read it. Then more recently dabbling in an Art project, it looked very sad. In W..M Latour is that newspaper reader, survivor no less, of La Chute. I'd guess FAZ, Liberatione and The Guardian. That is to say I think he his, then, unexceptionally isolated from day-to-day people and the exceptional, the artists. Before I forget, he believes that Kant failed. Supposedly we are engaged in deconstruction of a mere spectre.

Further Latour writes like some pastiche fiction - Henry Fielding does, so don't knock it with the wrong idea - and this kind of automation is exactly what I am attempting to use the term representation for. It exists metaphorically for one, without content, yet hits on itself through art. And we can't get it to a verbalisation, it's not around for psychoanalysis, it simply shapes and I don't know that you should care for what I may add to its description. Though I will be on it.

The best I can do this moment is repeat something, with addition, and evade Latour's feathery boas.

Animals domesticate us. That is resented, we see them as ritualising and, this is something of representing in one dimension (maybe the juvenile?), try that *against* all things animal, against also our own domestication. I mention the juvenile (and mindful I have presented the jesuits already) to suggest that - a philosopher called Fraser brought sunk cost into consideration today - the entire mechanism that permits militarisation is a product of the ritualised processing - quite knowing yet stupified by reifications - of young persons. That cost, against the risks and benefits against militarisation, is ignored. If anything accounts for growing failure against the boots of tech giants, it's there?
The claim I'm constructing is that of how we drop out of modernity - what is better than this as an alternative to "civilisation"? - by losing something of arts. Quite so, IQ is not the first medium of collation to have guided in principle.

Usual apologies. Yes, I could pick out verbatum from Latour. That's for you to do if need be. It's like reading the grease splashes in a chip-shop. I don't write up my actual notes here, I ad-hoc a version certainly less with logics I employ.

Have Never Been 1

Baudrillard may be correct on jesuits. Not only do the (actually past) cities sometimes hold the ancestors - where Nature is commanded from, in the stars - but for at least one nation in Navajo world their God is Dead. They use sane nets. Sein nets, the nets they also always used?
Pre-modern, said Latour getting a seat with anthropologists.

In other words we have often gone premodern. Greaber and Wengrow bring on the democracy from Native Americans, via Jesuits, so later...

This is first comment. Latour is wrong to speculate from S&S on Boyle and Hobbes.
Bruno says there's no context. As if Arts were nowhere - and probably (I don't know) not much in Bacon's Utopia. That's another story, mechanics and consumers.
Though not quite.
The conflict was between Culpepper and the Oxford Surgeons. It's Methodological Presentism.
Latour's allegation that some anglo-saxon technology took Europe is interesting.

What premodern nativism can do is make a point of othering. How much of that was there before when? Patchy, localised weather, until C19th?
What is making the weather fluctuate? Violence. I haven't read Freud's T&T nor Civilis. Discontents for two decades (sorry,)  yet in the notion of ritual violence is the conclusion that rituals make violence. Violence is not a system run by unwittings. Not a system like the military strategy to flatten down any modernity for the enemy.
The ritual is othering. The systems are for rituals - Graeber fluffed it BSjobs, he often missed the schtick, stick, the nervous tick of the common. Wengrow gets it. It's where the violence is.

(it's Bersani territory, the violence. My actual direction is on the psychoanalytic obsession with architectural space. We'll see)

Troubles

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022167817745621

There's a free download (sure link at the authors' tweets at least).

I'm not doing a full-on examination of this, I haven't read through the entirety and don't yet know what are the contents.

Etiology troubles. Are there social conditions that psychologically affect as opposed to material conditions and somatic effects?
To get psychosis as a template - and one that the triggering of can be changed* - does appear to be a root encephalitic moment. So that's material - somatic.
What becomes the content, metonymically expressed, certainly indexes some events. *So this is how the triggering, therefore the role in the persons actions, life, is changeable eg drug use.
The authors have walked right into profiling whilst trying to remove stigma and misdiagnosis. "Schizophrenia" is deployed detrimentally, on a par with demonic possession and the like. I call it dysludia (and I note, of late, that Bion was in similar conceptualising) and it comprises of a wheeling by manic neurosis and depressive psychosis.
We cannot change social casualitisation by dismissing the probable etiology and ever obsessing where either chance alone or suitable psychoanalysis will intervene against fatal consequences that do not need profilng for law enforcement on abusers systemic to so-called institutions.

Below a link will appear that is a superlative in case study. The life of Emil Post, courtesy of Wolfram Project.

https://youtu.be/ultMxODJE7o

Thinking whilst all there isn't

I was reading on Stiegler, I found some Hans Sluga, then John Dupre's Metaphysics of Biology. I gotten distance from what I had set on... and how? Idiot systems for living in the State, comedians sarcasm regurgitated as truth, the usual Britain: infection (every sense) by and of stupidity. I'm not anti-woke, I think Judith Butler gets stuff wrong, so to Sara Ahmed. And when Avital Ronnel is cited as succesful communucation by jargon... I tire.
Males, those at least shaped to being man or boy, learn to be distrustful of praise, of settling for the only different, or extension of old, idea. Honestly. Somehow those in the Critical zone, maybe often women, don't want to distrust?
I remember this was tumbling in my thoughts.
So I'd taken a look at Hobbes (the early and late as presented in a book from 1930 - when, the remark has no guidance to parsing except it may be a judgement on pre-new deal US) and Luhmann before Stiegler jumped up.

Differance. I continue to assert that we do not communicate in any way that fixes a meaning or even a memory of the so-called communication. Differance is that not communicated and, moreover it is all that is excluded, that we hold as a seperation of words or images in a frame with our experienced moment of being communicated to. Differance is that happening because what was there in communication to happen didn't do so.

I don't know. Something stops some of us from thinking differance to the order of things. Instead substance is given to so-called communication which is not that transfer of set information. It is only what is entirely communication, as an exclusion of making differance.

It is, I'm guessing, Butler's perfomativity, Ahmed's abjectionism, Ronnel's suite of neologisms. The expectation of knowing that is not knowing how. Knowing how is(/not) any thing. By taking up differance as an approach (this is of my 4th Wall weapon, though, of course, I don't know even all that...) instead of going through the motions, believing everythings about communication, may be what's missing?

Something is, and Badiou-ing it up is decidedly, objectionably, the wrong way into a judgementally.

This is not a polemic. Only a distribution noted in a process merely theorised.

A lot to be going on with

https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/habermas-adorno-politics

This here because it captures a lot. I disagree, over the implied absolute, on the Cardinal Newman (for starters). We should learn how we are learned of, how one learns. The student is taking up a pursuit of progress, after all. It should not be a procedural installation, a value-setting.

Does it matter?

I confess that I haven't succeeded in surviving the poor sound quality of lectures on Perspective Realism.
I don't want defame anyone, so I'll pretend that it works to interpret the label as supplying an argument for a - changeable - approach to things, somehow, independent of what, if we translate that in finding a perspective the agent is interpretable as human-like.

So it's already making an epistemological foundation: we've learnt something, of things, that humans are concerned in (why else do a thing?) and there are options because the thing(s) are straightforwardly detached from us yet have already shaped up something in our thoughts that gives that much perspective.

Epistemic (in/) justice is something we should have qualms about derogating. Rorty riffs on Michael Williams contra Davidson, and we can see this sort of stuff - whilst condemned as postmodern - has been vomitted up by passing acquitance - like a one-off bong session attendee - and snaffled up by some running dogs and hey presto the turds like Pinker and Peterson - has not been well examined. I'm not the best person for the job, either.
What we should be doing, if we aren't to get locked into a hybrid of legalistic metaphysics or psychiatry and evo-anything, is concentrate on the causal (pace Rorty) though not to a reduction by retrospection. Eliminating enough causal explanations to get to what is true about the agent's belief. There's nothing to knowledge on either side, only reaching an agreement that has causal description shared, translateable both ways.
We shouldn't have a culture of indignation about dissolving our claims to knowledge, eliminating the phrases of knowing isn't important. That'll happen, in theory. All I've ever had to say about empiricism is that the Praeger approach is best, because it never ends: observe the entity in the environment it takes on. David Deutsch didn't do that when referring to "Ancient Greeks" on empiricism. I don't get that anyone who has a belief in science, a claim to have some acquitance with history of theory and experiment could stick with the myth that there were such people so compartmentalised (it's a German thing?) except by the apostle Paul whose words in the bible are a sardonic entertainment to anyone who has read Aristotle and Plato via arabian or roman.

That we should take apart epistemic claims though always home in the agents is all that's said here. Latourian Actor Network Theory - I'm not much into making noise with STS (good luck, MC Hammer) - is of cause with Perspective Realism. Do people who "make" money only know how to be - by selection due to a reality independent of human attendance presumably? - with things that make money? The stuff has no mystery - except to Marxists? and Graeber's anthro-etymology is another matter. Soros, for example, figured he could be a moral conductor having been tutored by Popper. If ANT really describes how to get a grip on things, some Real(ism) thing, then it appears we got a grasp on a hallucination. We dream we know if we don't just let on that dreaming is all we really do. Epistemic Justice won't make a difference except to shift injustice around?

I'm only putting this down to make an easier way to argue in if I can later. The causal theme is a tricky one, beloved of analyticals. As is normativity. You get I don't do that, which is how I decided to start reading into philosophy with Rorty. In the twenty odd years I scrawled out arguments to test against his essays, I played with terminology. I couldn't have done that and stayed on my own case - in and out of physical illness, learning of the stupidity endemic and systematic in this democracy if an academic.
I've no ambition to become one.

Confused?

Someone mentioned Bion. Interesting and the prone attitude would rest on shamanism - though I don't see how anyone who believes that god ordered the bible, and presumably Buddha and Islam etc could sit in that place - and I've a lot to cogitate. I don't think "paranoid schizophrenia" can be seperated from what the religious hold down which is only the strong stuff that we are told - by Hobbesian fancy, if you will - we can't think about and live. Or something. Bion has quite the clinical experience. However neither my melancholia, which is accountable to common enough twin absorption and, unsurprisingly my easy mentoring by a cat which would give me to injuring my spleen, not withstanding my early rejection of a theologised cosmology. So I think that Kleinian resort is off. And so forth.
What I did find immediately - and Foucaulting by my lights this alpha - beta metynomisation - is the predictable link to FEP. Stop right there with the human as a magnified cell. Indeed any animal. There isn't a Markov Blanket. That we representise differently from language is exactly where art (heaven knows the term can only be used broadly) arrives. The parenthesis marks that that is never anything so very fixed no matter "I know what I like".
Friston is a conjurer; maybe of himself, his conviction? We don't get on better by some technical superimposition, anymore that Lacaning in every contact with another human would improve anyone. Some deconstruction can help, though only a some...

This I've only read the tweet

I don't know where they want to go with it

https://twitter.com/danieljamesyon/status/1385176919445053443?s=19

I've added this to wonder if it is so clear, given the above. What is clear is a question: do people have not necessarily wise ideas of what to do with infants?

I thought I'd share this. This helps along my criticism of the recursivity to ancien regime Freud - or the extreme he dreamed of, neuro/cog sci - by so many Lacanians pinned to the head of Zizek
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238334159

Tripping Rust

I don't have A Spirit of Trust, so, glancing at the chapter titles and reading the beginning of the introduction, I do not doubt nothing has changed that I oppose, I offer in opposition, to the inferentialism that Brandom is granted to guide in Rorty's essay (and Brandom is quite influential in Rorty's philosophy - it appears Brandom has gone Spinozist (and some thought Heideggerian, which is true in what follows) as was Rorty toward his departure. It is that Rorty teaches how to work in philosophy, that he believed we could get better by it, like eating well or a mutual beneficial partnering and so forth, not as total revolution much as there is the desire for. My only remaining aberrance is a resort to ironise the realism that State's use, imposing charactistics, habits, on vulnerable dependents such as often are academics and more revealing of this ad hominem vulgarity from me I see it of scientists. Politicians often don't even amount to this stencilling; to paraphrase Wittgenstein, maybe we should remain speechless; and render unto media what is media's?

This would be more than I'll write, because there's urgency and as ever I've more to do on these questions.

First off I haven't looked up what Brandom has to say, what Hegel does, on presuppositions. I won't labour over these, you'll labour enough digging down to them in the ruins, in my description, of what I write in - by my lights - temporarily labelled Humean Collapse (of science). There is frown on this Humean face. You'll see, though I'd have to write again, that I've made, after time (a considerable 2 decades) some concessions to Foucault (the New Historicism was lassiezitis on those tutored by Marx interpreters, Foucault is not guilty on the Discourse fest disaster so much as Deleuze and Guattari who are the handlers and chaperoned in New Historicism? Copjec, an incomparable logician and thorough exerciser of theorem, doesn't quite convince me of everything yet does walk through the workings out of troubles with Foucault. What I was leading to: that sexuality creates sex (as a proto FEP hypothesis?) is not really, not all, what can be made of evolution as the proliferation of diversity to generate accessible energy. We have to however think of what is The Military as a means of exhausting energy, as if to exhaust sexuality and - as Foucualt is woke to - control reproduction. Though what changes, what cannot take all space, is down to the fits of the linguistic, vocabularies. And that, for Freud was in a vocabulary unequivocally shared with Marx, is where all that is left of Hegel arrives. English consolidates all languages, though it cannot prove much of them for all that. Presently a Darwinian vocabulary - although we can't say what he meant about what he was only able to speculate on - and not he alone by any means - runs the show.

At this point I begin, with those reminders hopefully at rest with you.
It is amusing that Dawkins complains of Hegel - he's read Popper's Open Society - when he should be able to see his own inept use of Darwinism is not different in kind with the argumentations of faiths. I have pointed this out as Darwinists have recapitulated faiths, and Dame Beer on Darwin dabbled on how literature could've shaped Darwin. The relevance is the issue if science. Largely I think I'm arguing we have always been modern. Latour is quite the Baudrillardian, I wonder? Signification is a different matter, as it were, and one has to be suspect of something that relies on pedantry about the chronicity of things. This how I am suspicious, to say the least, of Perspective Realism (we could place Baudrillard in a gallery of notables?)

https://twitter.com/p_realism/status/1360212726606364673?s=19

That's for another time...

Nehemas has examined Nietzsche with a reverse engineering from the influenced, if not the uncrediting of such. Deleuze is cited, momentarily. From that remark my compression of a forming critique follows.
Now I don't take much from Spinoza - I could get more lyrical on this, suffice to say Wittgenstein hit home with TLP - except that I'm satisfied he got it that god and art are one and the same, and didn't like that but the "lens grinder" couldn't hide it, given he'd painted a deflection of the issue as a detailed panorama. Guattari brought the Spinozism to Deleuze, and though they may have gotten to the same conclusion it there we depart. I don't know that I'll achieve the contrast here, though I've no truck with D&G. I'm a universalist basically, not a trad Lacanian though I'm following through on the ahistorical human (element of us, for want of phrase at this moment) into Lacanian by Methodoligical Presentism (for ease of definition, though not argument. Well, Life is no argument?)

Ontology results from signs. D&G are bursting such, and such are one dimensional. They obscure time, so very like sciences. Bergsonian drifts will catch us cold, so lets stay warm, I'm not doing time as concept here, besides it is obscured. It is all very well to historiograph the concepts wrecking around under science labels, though what is needed is ethical declarations, full disclosure, of the implications of a research not the theory test the scientist insists they are providing. Science needs the precautionary principle enforced on it so that we are dependent on (here be Brandom's) inferentialism.
I abhor Virillio's TMI - something he shared with Habermas and Agamben - as a civilisational taciticy. In social life, yes, because Brandom hasn't a clue  - in his masonry work on the edifice of reason - how inferentialism is no more than a drug hit achieving, I'm concluding mutually assured distraction and of a ruse of authenticity (the bogeyman was going to pop out...).
Deleuze is translated as writing borrows in arguing that, and identity is the schtick, that redescription has to use the enemy's descriptions so to survive. In fact the object is "object", and that's another barrel of Diogenesians to die in whatever metaphor you care to splice it with. This is Dawkins talkings. Monod, Jacques was way ahead of Dawkins and no improvement in being a forerunner. D&G were next door to him, culturally, we may infer.

I'll end this incomplete statement with one of intent: we cannot be authentic.
We need drop the inferentialism past-time and get the sciences into the routine of pre-publication ethical examination, that every finding will accrue without allowing recourse to libel.

It's a question of presuppositions and realism is only a Deleuzian object society is sent by force tripping over.

Fort Apache and Zizek (not really, nearly)

I've taken time, not time given over I hasten to add, to interpret Foucault. And only because of Robinson's The Terms of Order which, I am only guessing, is where I make my methodological presentism (If I am doing that, and not as philosophy as I've emphasised elsewhere, it yet to be other than the ante, the a priori, that I replaces what some would store Lacanian in? I saw the world from the Cambrian mountains, a factory suppling gearboxes for submarines that could deliver nukes, as a child) and so to this: episteme(s) are the dwelling of the military
It is the space that an episteme does not control that becomes the next. I cannot begin know what that means to us. What I do note is how, it is all that is Foucault, this reveals the body of medicine. Today a tweeter remarked on the rebarbitive demand that one announce the reason for being at a doctors to the receptionist amongst the waiting in the room. In military training the role of controlled dysludia is paramount. Psychosis is birth into uniform, the march - of history - the clinic.
Here the Schmitt-Ford (or Zizek stalking Pippin?) gets into a minimal tableau. In Fort Apache Geronimo (and the actor's typecasting is extraordinary) is titled as the medicine man. Space and shaman. The military are heading off-Earth, and most shamen probably had to serve the martial parameters of clan activity.
Military dwelling. The garden.
The Apothecary garden, the volcanic rock hilltops of Arabia to Wales.
Our language gives false witness of matter, it pretends nature of science. Our bodies do not so front when we are ill. Holobionts know the matter. We have found that the space station has produced novel bacteria. Matter does science of itself.

Nietzsche's sarcastic lesson from the school of the military is the question for those popularizing eugenics. In any event it can't deliver, crispr can't do miracles. Yet already it is activated by NICe in the UK in the English NHs. The provision that is imperative is that all but the technicians must waiver immunity from prosecution by the progeny, absolutely including the parents. Biden is opening the USA to the International Criminal Court personnel, and where as it is difficult to enforce moratoria on eugenic attempts it would not be difficult for a legal system to allow the ICC to arrest and try persons if that provision for progeny were set in force in at least one member state?
A digression. Yet who is made stronger?

The point is we need get out of the military culturation of medicine. It remains in that space, at least in speech acts. The Clausewitzian Cardigan Paradigm: (an StD researcher said) we need more cases of variants to find treatments.

The problem with most work from Foucault is that not recognising the orientations of each episteme as ever contracting on the libidinal - it turned out the almost entirely male East German Army was almost entirely regular engaging in homosexual activities - each one - and epi-epistemes, or epicycles - revolving around the historical concern of the time and place. Mary Woostencraft was a fascist (it can be said) for breastfeeding, so as example of liberation that was only to a "natural" motherhood. Dickens was a subscriber, you better believe it. In all pres. method. won't supplant what Foucault does, in English editions (some parallels with Freud and Lacan) at least, not capture: the proto-clinical psychoanalytic so often only vestigial in folktales (not least the Bible) that has ever been the military perpetuating it's offences when medicine could have been the peacemaker. It worked for the first Dutch in Japan.
The battle of medicines I first noted as a thread in The Iliad, one may - I don't know, yet if animal gut, if not human, were used as prophylactics one wonders what's up a "sleeve"? - in Shakespeare's Troillus and Cressida find similar motifs?

These moments are bleak. The desperate poke the corpse of nationalism and spray decay over us all. If they are examples of identity politics then any affiliation beyond inventive anti-exploitative humanity may indicate to some of us at best an indoctrination in reductionism, at worst a failure of fantasy that must be a death of honesty.

At my leisure

With the project complete, little more than an essay, I'll be busy with a lot and after another foray into an accumulation of Parkinson's documents whilst gearing up the film life, I'll begin a critical reading of Deleuze and Guattari. My semiontic statement won't be enough for those stranded in DG cosmologies, I can see. There are a lot of problems I can't begin to list with their dealings in matters. They are bigger than Marx, I'd say. And maybe that's the film? In thirty years can they match Derrida or Foucault in aura?
Anyway, I've decided this.

Saying it

I've left a few old posts. Like you see where the wild has taken the wire down. Some work, I can decompress them and don't bleed to death. I guess I aim to update on those (no rewrites, I need see where I've been) and do better. I don't think they ROI of time, besides I've withdrawn into ice as interesting if they do (and again as documenting development). So this is just for any newbies. And do not indulge anything purporting to connect to me on facebook
As near as psy ops by run by excretion of the knigthood system is all it is. Who it is for? Evidently someone so obsessed they expect everyone else to be.

PÉRORANT OUTANG - Freud Stage Mirrors

This began riffing on Lacan's wonderings on the origin of speech, in humanity specifically. I say the nasal bulb. This began and then was lost to matter by signal drop.

Not simply did I want to say something about speech. I wanted to indicate something of Lacan, and I find only Soler truly is sober to this - Lacan doesn't want to go there, and it is not difficult to accept his distrust of science, yet it is difficult to accept how much - Ethics states quite plainly - Lacan deliberately allowed mystery if not was genuinely mystified.

Too much is allowed doxasticity in all, except maybe Soler, I read of from Lacanians. No wonder society is a mere taphonomy. This is especially true of where what is not said as an adherence to Freud is taken so. The same was with Lacan on Lacan, the subject even there is finding its own way, we can observe that and learn to do better.

That Oedipal - we could find another figure - I will need to see Cocteau's a'la Lang version. We could find another figure. Drop the not being as good as the form of woman at the male groin, the topology Dionysian. What can or not a body be made by the subject? From memory - this the Father, no more no less - jouissance can be halted. Additionally the commandment, the superego is feminine - that feminine is the otherside of this human history, this masculine attack on life? I don't know what genders are except the consequences of gendering which render claims of intersubjectivity ridiculous - it would never have happened. The Levi-Strauss whatever... never if the Social Bond is what is made to it by psychoanalysis. The gendering has nothing to do with artifices of its consequences. It just says that we are animals and know, only this works as life works it works in all I'm working here, that sapience (animals have that, sentience is what is stuffed like Bentham) is of one as individual and maybe that others have, potential, the same knowing.

Ok. If the autistic is copying the memory of others? Becoming, in their being, memory (or the Father, well yes, what the get of them the one in that role, no doubt) and they have no sense of death somehow maybe not of their own certainly of others (I don't know). That is the mythical Social Bond is, only ever was and will not change, of death. They do have it, yet they must hide from themselves?
If a certain amount of melancholics are so from absorbing a sibling in the womb then why not autists, a number, are a different response to same? Or even some endocrinal developmental event in the womb? This is if I am getting at the Social Bond anamorphis correctly.
It would be the autistic needs - by forgetting the Social Bond in the way we say it is without saying it is death - fresh anxieties, achievable by using simulcra of memories, to make memory a symptom, so double, tripling etc anxiety for jouissance to be achieved?

I want say everything. People can be unmade of stupid. We can't forget we are - the autist can? - and that's the point of two passes : a subject maybe our fullest capacity for thought; we have to think with analysand success as a fresh stupid?

Much of this  - it is disappointing my first remarks were vanished - begs the question "Where if not vocabulary - because that really doesn't work whatever Lacan said about japanese taken into consideration - as Brenner climbs on is the surround that our holobiont endocrinal semioticised existence still gets troubles from?

It's not the State of Mirroring. Though it is of PROMISE? Religions hang around like ghosts and PROMISE
States or enterprises do the same - a Lacanian can promise nothing, we don't know - and the key matter is that need to believe. That doesn't need words, does it?

Rather than indulge in defining what I say with the word belief - it owes something to Davidson, you have noted my remarks or haven't - I, like Derrida, have wondered on death. I began, many years before I gave a thought to thought, curious as to where the expectations placed on the dead grew, the similarities and diversities.
That'll do for now.

Switch

Yes. That I have switched around the postulated narrative position. Of course, maybe this is a switching, and needs comparison to clinic in Lacanian - I'm not quite a'la mode. Absolutely not for testing at the early life. I find a lot of that "science" abhorrent, unconsentable, invasive. One only has to note Pinker, S to consider the level of stupid.

MetaEthic description or WorldWriting sketch

The trouble is the psychopath (biological) whose fantasy (that they do not have without thorough examination) exists as an act - a peculiar cheat - that supports the far worse sociopathy. The failure throughout them is to grant others a life outside their own - they are making others rent rooms in their heads to their troubles, yet claim moral superiority simply for paying up (we see this in findom - there are no doubt many endings only few are privy to the facts of).

I have avoided sociopathy and can treat my spleen to avoid the strike of the riboflavin drop when angered. The precision of thought, no doubt habituated over decades yet often demeured, avoided for not simply the consequences but from a learning of life, of chance deserved. I know my simple fantasy - film-making I can do among other pursuits - is that of composing, recording, music. I get that it belongs as a daydream, I have tried though the sheer shutting off of all else is not in my skillset - well, chance does deliver proof of talent and maybe I'll get down to it, move another fantasy into play? This is not of my objet a and all. That is simply abstracting space visually and the all is of sleep.

So we have these failures, tangled in living fantasy, only alive for moral superiority; until the expected great reveal of death, we can suppose (in hell they would not be good company) they expect an afterlife?

What we judge on them is not from the morality surround that doubtless inspires their gambit, which they fear and expect we may act from against them. We judge them on the pathetic cheap thrill that feeds them at the expense of other lives that are left to attempt survival in that morality surround. That they would destroy, with growing abandon, all fantasized threats yet not their cheap thrill (which is of set of many in the mismanaged concepts of the Oedipal, at least that is where we would begin an analysis I suggest) which began as some rite of identity - not in "genes" - that arrives in idioms, vernacular, the colloquial - for we all make flesh animal without the human by the human, sublime, skill of total inattention to Time?

As I can attest the greatest threat to achieving a difference is physical illness. Again the moral surround will determine of those similar by several different approximations the same cause - not demons or a god's sentencing (it is, of course, in literal sentencing several and different) but genes. And that in this time is their god-like sentence on others.

It may be they can only test their own death and with better wishes than the posthumous reveal should they achieve their deepest move for freedom? This is a better alternative the slow fracture, the taphonomy of their motives preserved for as long as civilisation obtains?

The vastest difficulty is the habituation to sadism - for want a better term - that in this long grief is exercised at persons from the fantasy of "genes". I subscribe to a holobiontia, a epigenetically derived starting point that determines nothing that can be called personality or identity. It only determines abstract sensitivities that are - by lights of Arrival of the Fittest - avenues to change by choice. It is, perhaps, our greatest obstacle that we depend on speech to the detriment of improving our animal humanity.

This is a predicament that is not infrequent, yet frequently unapprehended. I was not going to press a philosophical shape to the description. That is quite another text.

I think this a worthwhile accompaniment:
https://youtu.be/YiivnaT9V28