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.