Meowy Wowy Puddin' and Pie

Kitty eats a Word Salad

Archive for the ‘existentialism’ Category

A short essay on the difference between Collective and Community

leave a comment »

If I follow myself correctly now, we go from multiplicity to individual, and back to multiplicity again. That means the next stage would be back to individual again. please see NGE: End of Evangelion for more details of what that might look like.

That long dead scion of saintliness, Soren Kierkegaard, long ago pondered this paradox: if an individual is part of a collective, then how, at times, must the rights of the individual be necessarily be valued higher than those of the collective? And if we are indeed all individuals, then how exactly does the collective then emerge from us?

There is a view of life which holds that where the crowd is, the truth is also, that it is a need in truth itself, that it must have the crowd on its side.There is another view of life; which holds that wherever the crowd is, there is untruth, so that, for a moment to carry the matter out to its farthest conclusion, even if every individual possessed the truth in private, yet if they came together into a crowd (so that “the crowd” received any decisive, voting, noisy, audible importance), untruth would at once be let in.

For “the crowd” is untruth.

Where the crowd is..a decisive importance is attached to the fact that there is a crowd, there no one is working, living, and striving for the highest end, but only for this or that earthly end; since the eternal, the decisive, can only be worked for where there is one; and to become this by oneself, which all can do, is to will to allow God to help you – “the crowd” is untruth.

A crowd – not this or that, one now living or long dead, a crowd of the lowly or of nobles, of rich or poor, etc., but in its very concept – is untruth, since a crowd either renders the single individual wholly unrepentant and irresponsible, or weakens his responsibility by making it a fraction of his decision. Observe, there was not a single soldier who dared lay a hand on Caius Marius; this was the truth. But given three or four women with the consciousness or idea of being a crowd, with a certain hope in the possibility that no one could definitely say who it was or who started it: then they had the courage for it; what untruth! The untruth is first that it is “the crowd,” which does either what only the single individual in the crowd does, or in every case what each single individual does.

For a crowd is an abstraction, which does not have hands; each single individual, on the other hand, normally has two hands, and when he, as a single individual, lays his two hands on Caius Marius, then it is the two hands of this single individual, not after all his neighbor’s, even less – the crowd’s, which has no hands.

This line of logic is important because it clears-up my confusion on the structural differences betwen Communism and Facsism. They’re both supposed to be carrying out the will of the people for the people, right? What? huh?  So what constitutes this will, anyway?  To answer, I extrapolate Soren’s line of logic further: if the individual is both himself *and* part of the collective, then it must be that the the individual emerges *from* the collective but is still embedded within its environment, like the Swamp Thing rising out of a sludge, a single material muxed temporally into two superimposed functions. Thus the individual risks disintegrating back into the goop if his individual will (freedom) cannot be maintained. That’s why I (and others) often claim that fascism is the end point of liberalism – it isn’t the only path that can lead there, of course, but inevitably *will* lead there – as its obsession with the individual for his own sake leads to crippling isolation and alienation from the world. (and I ain’t talking bout the world of plants and dirt here). And what is the power of one mere individual against these mashed up masses…? Nothing! Like that horse from the never-ending story, yer gonna get sucked back into that goop-soup faster than sand sinking into quicksand and no amount of tears will stop your fall, for “you” no longer exists… only by banding together in mutual respect, in a sort of self-supporting net, can we maintain our integrity!  Such is the dramatic importantance of community in a free society!

swumpy

And so, on the structural makeup of Fascism:
As a drone is to a colony of ants, so is a person just a facet of the One Unified Organic State. The leader of a fascist state is thus no mere dictator who controls the fate and the fat of the State by the strength of his own hands. No, Dear Leader is a living, breathing conduit for power – one *through* whom is channeled the collective will of the people, in the same spirit and in the same spontaneous reality that a rope is a conduit through which is channeled the collective judgment of a lynch-mob. He is One with the State. There is no such thing as an individual, self-determined will, and subsequently no such thing as individual rights or freedoms. A spirit of Might-Makes-Right replaces morality, and culture is purposed towards a cohesive rather than expressive goal. Dear Leader is thus the one most fit to embody these values.

Now, both Communism and Fascism are related in that both are reactions against extreme individualism, both recognizing that the concept of an Ayn Rand Individual is a ridiculous myth within the context of an individual living within a culture. While a person may think of their ethics, desires, and will as being completely their own, all these things develop from, and will always continue to be influenced by, the ethics, desires, and will of other people. Fascism and Socialism are in essence opposite perspectives on the teleology of how the individual should develop within society.

And thus, on the difference between the leadership of Communism and Fascism that defines them both:
Communism is the effort towards the “full realization of human freedom” – for society to be a community rather than a collective. The difference is that a community does not suppress the individual, but is instead *made up* of individuals. It works, ecstatically, to enable the individual to emerge, triumphant and free, *from* the base collective as a conscious participant in the community! So, I guess Deleuze would say that in the same pithy way that Communism is Democracy, rather than Totalitarianism, developed by and channeled through mass movements.

And there ya have it, the difference between Fascist and Communist Leadership is equal to the difference between Collective and Community.

Written by meowywowy

November 30, 2010 at 9:47 am

Ulyssess Explained: Penultimate Penelope reworked into concise, readable Prose

leave a comment »

*taps foot*

Every night I think over you and my heart skips a beat. Oh, these swaying memories are like marshmallows, light and fluffy! I’m always working hard (always trying hard) even though I’m always (even though I’m always) day-dreaming of your face… you haven’t ever realized, have you? Ah, but what if it’s all just a dream? (all a dream) So what – Then the distance between us has shortened! Oh dear God, way up above, please give this Dream that belongs to the both of us! So I say good night while hugging my beloved bunny… Light and Fluffy time! (light and fluffy time) Light and Fluffy time! (light and fluffy time) Light and Fluffy time!

*wakes up*

Written by meowywowy

July 12, 2010 at 5:54 pm

And so it goes with Faulkner

leave a comment »

Brendle wrote a thing on Faulkner, and I wrote another response =] just some little itty bitty words this time, but they’re  here.

Great article as always, M. Brendle.  That last bit at the end there, though, has got me thinking a little bit about the nature of truth. If real writers want to express truth, as you say, then what does it mean when a writer presents truth as a multiplicity – contradictory and inconsistent? There must be no truth in truth! And, carried further, even if some  perspectives on truth align, unless each truth is exactly the same as, inside and out, every other truth, then there must be some critical elements of each individual truth missing from their union.  Truth can never be absolute and truth can never be complete. So what good is truth to anyone?  For Faulkner, I don’t think it was worth too much.  But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact I consider it a transcendent glory – for is this not, truly, the existentialist credo!

To me, these true views on truth are spelled out most explicitly in that desperate scene from Absalom, Absalom, that pitted Tom in a battle with his half-brother Charles over the latter’s quest to find truth in love.  In an attempt to insist on a defacto victory, Tom relates a conversation that he had during the Civil war with his commanding officer: that it is his very feeling of righteousness that lets him know that a fight is just and noble, ending with the immortal line: “General Lee, I think I know what ‘Truth’ is.” The part of the memory he leaves out, of course, is the General’s response, who utters in utter disgust: “Truth…  dreams… hope… Where did they come from? And where are they headed…? These things… I am going to destroy!”  Moments later, Charles dies. I guess the message is that Real Truth, then, can never exist outside of dying man’s final fantasy.

Written by meowywowy

July 9, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Torture in Good Faith

leave a comment »

Here is the text of a pamphlet I wrote (revised slightly; I added a short paragraph at the beginning to include a discussion of a better understanding of what Jonh Yoo means by Good Faith – which is far more perverted than I originally conceived.)  Originally handed out to about 100 protesters, (mostly law students I think, although I did give one to George McGovern!  who seemed like a very nice guy by the way).  I also cross-posted it to the forums afterwards, although there are no responses by EvanTH, John Yoo’s well-known vaugely sock-puppetish SA posting persona. Anyways, the pamphlet was originally titled “Torture is a Product of the Market of Desire,” which is a really unfortunate title but I had the flu and printed these damn things at the last minute.  Torture in Good Faith is a much better title, IMHO.

Infrateal gave me such extensive feedback on developing my argument smoothly and coherently (and with such gusto) that I added him as a co-author.  God Bless!

That funny part at the end was my attempt to take back that powerful patriotic American essence that’s been recently co-opted and stolen by the large corporate interests that currently power the Tea Party.  The song of course describes the American flag, and the prose-part is sorta a free whellin’ satirical inversion of Shelley’s immortal sonnet Ozymandias.  So now you know.

A Condemnation of the Ideology of John Yoo
By J.R. and L.V.

John Yoo has defended his decisions on torture in “good faith” in his role at the DOJ, which most regular and reasonable people would take to mean that he fully understood the stakes and chose a path of action internally consistent with his own view of the world.  That is not what *he* means, however.

The “Good Faith” that John Yoo speaks of, on the matter of torture, is actually the name of a doctrine that he, along with the rest of the Bush Six, have created specifically to answer the question of torture. It says that as long as an interrogator does not *honestly believe,* in good faith, that any particular action is torture to a detainee, then the committed act is thus *not* torture, even if most other regular and reasonable people – especially the detainee himself – believe it to be so. The “Good Faith Doctrine” is nothing more than a buearacratic Catch-22 (ya know, the best Catch there is!) that aims to eliminate moral responsibility from the equation and to insulate the agents of the United States from any kind of culpability, despite what any regular and reasonable people might think of the matter.

The loophole is critically flawed, however. Even if this perverted doctrine could absolve those sadistic solicitors at the very bottom of the chain of command of their crimes, the fact that the writ was not a defensive measure, but a pre-emptive one, means that the men who breathed power into its conception *do* themselves understand that what they worked to enable is torture.  The “good faith” of the interrogators thus derives from the actual good faith of men like John Yoo.  That these actions were taken through his good faith means they truly reflect his view of the world, providing us with a periscope into the living, active heart of his ideology, its lenses unclouded by any dissemblance. What we observe is that through this instrument of good faith the approval and encouragement of torture techniques, such as waterboarding, which mechanically induces the physiological sensation of death, and the possibly more terrifying sensory deprivation, which severs a man from the world to simulate the entirety of death, came to be effectively actualized, for a time, into US law. These instruments of terror were considered necessary, in good faith, to prevent terror. How did such a cold and utilitarian perspective of humanity – a perspective whereby the individual person can be, at a moment’s notice, subsumed into mass numerical identity as a humanoid token of calculation – come to be lived in good faith? For it is that critical leap, turning human into mechanical humanoid, that is the core of the controversy and outrage of Yoo’s work in the Bush administration. The possibility of a sudden transformation from human to humanoid should be terrifying to more than just enemy combatants plucked from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Could you imagine your senator or congressman or hometown mayor saying: “Sorry, y’all, for this torture n’ all, but we’ll put an end to it once we develop technology to directly extract information from your brain… y’know, like we do from a black box from a plane crash?” – always helpfully putting the discussion in accessible terms – “That’s why we voted to fund research at this university, after all…” The prospect of anyone in our democratic government propounding such a view is unthinkable, and yet John Yoo and the Bush Six, as the other top officials in the Bush Administration have become known, not only thought it but did it, from the shadows, unaccountable to the American people.

Such a cynical ideology is far more pervasive than just Yoo. The outrageous torture memo is, at its core, aligned with both neoliberal reasoning which considers torture (or any human question) on the basis of a “cost-benefit” analysis or utilitarian tradeoff, and neoconservative rhetoric which propounds torture as an unquestionable necessity. Setting aside empirical evidence against the ability of torture to render reliable intelligence, all such arguments remove a human being’s humanity entirely from the matter, and thus imply that torture’s goals are acceptable even if the current method is not. That such a view is widely entertained is the result of no conspiracy theory, but what we see as a national existential malaise brought on ever-so-steadily as cultural and technology evolution have disconnected us from each other. The case of John Yoo and the Bush Six is just a particular instantiation of a much more widespread ideology that has begun to see us, as human beings, as abstract units to be controlled and quelled and kept at a safe distance. Fearful of the irrational forces of desire that exist in the human mind, this ideology demands a brutal and unrelenting order: at the individual level, that these forces be locked away, and at the societal level, when desires run orthogonal to any particular individual, that they be manipulated for society’s own good. Whether justice is brought to bear in this case or not, we, as a people, must reject any line of thought that would seek to deny us our own humanity.

One consequence of this human to humanoid ideological shift is promotion for a so-called “market democracy,” where matters of society are handled solely by the rules of and the faith in the free market: if the people want it, then the market will reflect that demand, thus bringing democracy in its purest and fairest sense to all people. We disagree that an idea hatched in such rarefied ideological air can survive in reality, not without growing into a monster. A market system ignores the checks and balances built into democracy as we currently know it to prevent minorities from being trampled by the majority; “pure” majority rule is mob rule, not only tyrannous in itself but susceptible to extraordinary delusions and the tyranny of a manipulator. The widespread belief that The Free Market Is God cannot help but be contrasted with an equally widespread but oppositely aligned belief of animosity for our American government.

In his 1958 essay, “Two Kinds of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin discusses the difference between the negative and positive freedoms, on which the relationship between an individual and society is built. Negative liberty is constituted of constraints that society has defined for the individual, with the implication that the individual has the freedom to do anything that he or she is not explicitly denied. Positive liberty, in compliment, is the freedom implied in “free will”, the self-determination that allows one to care for and change the world around them. This differentiation is important as an instance of one kind necessarily negates the existence of the other for any particular case, and both are needed for any healthy society. The great triumph of democracy is the right of all citizens to proactive involvement in their government, placing the positive liberty of self-determination in command of that great arbiter of negative liberties. Thus democracy signifies a subjugation of negative liberty to positive free will, while retaining negative liberties as a counterbalance.

Thus a society dependent on a pure market system of rule does not represent true democracy for two reasons:

First, a regulatory body of negative rights is no longer ultimately subordinate to positive rights; it is absent entirely. The recent economic disaster has demonstrated the massively deleterious ramifications of even negligent regulation; consider a similar disaster afflicting not only the national budget and your pocketbook, but the nation itself, your liberties and physical security.

Second, the human desires which constitute free will, and thus the self-determination guaranteed by our system of democracy, manifest themselves within that system by sustained efforts: voting is instantaneous, but campaigning for a preferred candidate or issue is what controls the vote, and candidates committed to running for office is prerequisite for a vote. Such efforts to change the government by campaigning can be considered linear, as vectors of self-determination; only after these vectors have run their course is an instantaneous point of measure taken in a vote. Short-circuiting this process to yield the derivative instantly does not measure the true will of the constituency, with their human need for time to advance their campaigns. A marketplace may provide a majority, but as a snapshot on a curve fluctuating faster than human reason; all semblance of voting reflecting considered opinion is replaced by commodified desires, simple machines that produce simple, free-floating cravings. A market of desire is a system built from a fundamental, crass reductionism.

A market is Darwinian by nature, and thus a market of desire ranks the biggest, purest, and most HUNGRY desires as most valuable: those iron-clad, invincible base instincts, unaffected by rhyme or reason or community. The great danger of such a system lies in the fact that its will is arbitrated by the power that arbitrates all markets – capital. Whether a market is a fair way of appropriating human resources is a separate matter, but on the matter of appropriating the resource of human consciousness, the danger is absolute: it is the path to Fascism, as we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. Propagandists, like Frank Luntz, George Lakoff, and Clotaire Rapaille, would seek to design an interface into our desire, little buttons that manipulate a part in order to manipulate the whole – and all you need to press a button is capital. Corporations such as Forrester and IDC seek to create a user manual to the humanoid, a handy guide that shows which buttons to push and how to amplify the effects of a push through identity/wedge politics – and all you need to give for this helpful info is capital. But as these subversive manipulations are externally induced into our consciousness, their presence as part of the whole is not coherent, and inducing cognitive dissonance is hardly in the rational self interest of the individual, or eventually, of society. While the mind of a human being is an unquestionably hardy creation, the end point for an individual in a market of desire is the same desperate, psychotic insanity that occurs any time that irrational desire overwhelms conscious will – effects seen in the likes of Joseph Stack, Malik Hasan, Jack Bedell, and the very same fundamentalist terrorist suicide bombers that our war on terror is targeted against.

I conclude that democracy powered through the derivative of free will is not a democracy of human beings, but a pathological ideology that leads to fascism, which, we reiterate for clarity, we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. For it is through this ideology and its utilitarian view of humanity that the Patriot Act, which sanctions dictatorial powers for the executive branch as long as it can maintain a state of perpetual war, was authored by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. It was through this ideology that silent, warrantless surveillance of American citizens was demanded by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. And it follows only from this ideology that a justification of torture and reduction of human beings to mere flesh-covered containers of information is possible in good faith. The ideology of John Yoo is the ideology of Fascism and THAT, in its totality, is what we have come here today to protest.  It is time for the rest of us regular and reasonable people to assert that moral responsibility, not torture, is what we must derive from good faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a lonely voice rings out across the sea…

“It takes just,
a single song of rock-n-roll…
echo-ing away into the night…
and across the stars shrines through a light,
and the darkness… begins to fade all awaaayyyY…”

And in New York’s harbor, a cold grey statue stirs to life… her butt’s ’bout burned to the filter, and so yeah, you could say she’s got a bit of an AXE to grind. Cold smoke still wisping from her fingers, this colossal Queen of Queens slowly reaches down, underneath her robes, and emerges with the flash of BLUE STEEL – ye mighty ten-ton-tall electric gee-tar of the nation’s psalm of freedom. An old rumor sez that she chiseled “LIVE” “FREE” onto her knuckles with her own hand… *vBRRRRGNrngnrrr….* The first pluck of the morning twangs with a radiant shockwave that pierces the dull orange shadow of the dawning light. Don’t know nothin’ bout no rumors, but yeah baby, that sound is bitchin’. There’s a short pause of silence as she tunes the pegs; you can hear the faint crackling of the clay between her fingers, and the creaking groan of her ancient iron joints, and the thunderous tapping of her feet upon the pedestal. But now, grip on Blue Steel steady and sure, she lights the fire again…

“It takes just a single song of rock-n-roll…”

A Condemnation of the Ideology of John Yoo

John Yoo has defended his decisions on torture in “good faith” in his role at the DOJ, which most regular and reasonable people would take to mean that he fully understood the stakes and chose a path of action internally consistent with his own view of the world.  That is not what *he* means, however.

The “Good Faith” that John Yoo speaks of, on the matter of torture, is actually the name of a doctrine that he, along with the rest of the Bush Six, have created specifically to answer the question of torture. It says that as long as an interrogator does not *honestly believe,* in good faith, that any particular action is torture to a detainee, then the committed act is thus *not* torture, even if most other regular and reasonable people – especially the detainee himself – believe it to be so. The “Good Faith Doctrine” is nothing more than a buearacratic Catch-22 (ya know, the best Catch there is!) that aims to eliminate moral responsibility from the equation and to insulate the agents of the United States from any kind of culpability, despite what any regular and reasonable people might think of the matter.

The loophole is critically flawed, however. Even if this perverted doctrine could absolve those sadistic solicitors at the very bottom of the chain of command of their crimes, the fact that the writ was not a defensive measure, but a pre-emptive one, means that the men who breathed power into its conception *do* themselves understand that what they worked to enable is torture.  The “good faith” of the interrogators thus derives from the actual good faith of men like John Yoo.  That these actions were taken through his good faith means they truly reflect his view of the world, providing us with a periscope into the living, active heart of his ideology, its lenses unclouded by any dissemblance. What we observe is that through this instrument of good faith the approval and encouragement of torture techniques, such as waterboarding, which mechanically induces the physiological sensation of death, and the possibly more terrifying sensory deprivation, which severs a man from the world to simulate the entirety of death, came to be effectively actualized, for a time, into US law. These instruments of terror were considered necessary, in good faith, to prevent terror. How did such a cold and utilitarian perspective of humanity – a perspective whereby the individual person can be, at a moment’s notice, subsumed into mass numerical identity as a humanoid token of calculation – come to be lived in good faith? For it is that critical leap, turning human into mechanical humanoid, that is the core of the controversy and outrage of Yoo’s work in the Bush administration. The possibility of a sudden transformation from human to humanoid should be terrifying to more than just enemy combatants plucked from the battlefields of Afghanistan. Could you imagine your senator or congressman or hometown mayor saying: “Sorry, y’all, for this torture n’ all, but we’ll put an end to it once we develop technology to directly extract information from your brain… y’know, like we do from a black box from a plane crash?” – always helpfully putting the discussion in accessible terms – “That’s why we voted to fund research at this university, after all…” The prospect of anyone in our democratic government propounding such a view is unthinkable, and yet John Yoo and the Bush Six, as the other top officials in the Bush Administration have become known, not only thought it but did it, from the shadows, unaccountable to the American people.

Such a cynical ideology is far more pervasive than just Yoo. The outrageous torture memo is, at its core, aligned with both neoliberal reasoning which considers torture (or any human question) on the basis of a “cost-benefit” analysis or utilitarian tradeoff, and neoconservative rhetoric which propounds torture as an unquestionable necessity. Setting aside empirical evidence against the ability of torture to render reliable intelligence, all such arguments remove a human being’s humanity entirely from the matter, and thus imply that torture’s goals are acceptable even if the current method is not. That such a view is widely entertained is the result of no conspiracy theory, but what we see as a national existential malaise brought on ever-so-steadily as cultural and technology evolution have disconnected us from each other. The case of John Yoo and the Bush Six is just a particular instantiation of a much more widespread ideology that has begun to see us, as human beings, as abstract units to be controlled and quelled and kept at a safe distance. Fearful of the irrational forces of desire that exist in the human mind, this ideology demands a brutal and unrelenting order: at the individual level, that these forces be locked away, and at the societal level, when desires run orthogonal to any particular individual, that they be manipulated for society’s own good. Whether justice is brought to bear in this case or not, we, as a people, must reject any line of thought that would seek to deny us our own humanity.

One consequence of this human to humanoid ideological shift is promotion for a so-called “market democracy,” where matters of society are handled solely by the rules of and the faith in the free market: if the people want it, then the market will reflect that demand, thus bringing democracy in its purest and fairest sense to all people. We disagree that an idea hatched in such rarefied ideological air can survive in reality, not without growing into a monster. A market system ignores the checks and balances built into democracy as we currently know it to prevent minorities from being trampled by the majority; “pure” majority rule is mob rule, not only tyrannous in itself but susceptible to extraordinary delusions and the tyranny of a manipulator. The widespread belief that The Free Market Is God cannot help but be contrasted with an equally widespread but oppositely aligned belief of animosity for our American government.

In his 1958 essay, “Two Kinds of Liberty,” Isaiah Berlin discusses the difference between the negative and positive freedoms, on which the relationship between an individual and society is built. Negative liberty is constituted of constraints that society has defined for the individual, with the implication that the individual has the freedom to do anything that he or she is not explicitly denied. Positive liberty, in compliment, is the freedom implied in “free will”, the self-determination that allows one to care for and change the world around them. This differentiation is important as an instance of one kind necessarily negates the existence of the other for any particular case, and both are needed for any healthy society. The great triumph of democracy is the right of all citizens to proactive involvement in their government, placing the positive liberty of self-determination in command of that great arbiter of negative liberties. Thus democracy signifies a subjugation of negative liberty to positive free will, while retaining negative liberties as a counterbalance.

Thus a society dependent on a pure market system of rule does not represent true democracy for two reasons:

First, a regulatory body of negative rights is no longer ultimately subordinate to positive rights; it is absent entirely. The recent economic disaster has demonstrated the massively deleterious ramifications of even negligent regulation; consider a similar disaster afflicting not only the national budget and your pocketbook, but the nation itself, your liberties and physical security.

Second, the human desires which constitute free will, and thus the self-determination guaranteed by our system of democracy, manifest themselves within that system by sustained efforts: voting is instantaneous, but campaigning for a preferred candidate or issue is what controls the vote, and candidates committed to running for office is prerequisite for a vote. Such efforts to change the government by campaigning can be considered linear, as vectors of self-determination; only after these vectors have run their course is an instantaneous point of measure taken in a vote. Short-circuiting this process to yield the derivative instantly does not measure the true will of the constituency, with their human need for time to advance their campaigns. A marketplace may provide a majority, but as a snapshot on a curve fluctuating faster than human reason; all semblance of voting reflecting considered opinion is replaced by commodified desires, simple machines that produce simple, free-floating cravings. A market of desire is a system built from a fundamental, crass reductionism.

A market is Darwinian by nature, and thus a market of desire ranks the biggest, purest, and most HUNGRY desires as most valuable: those iron-clad, invincible base instincts, unaffected by rhyme or reason or community. The great danger of such a system lies in the fact that its will is arbitrated by the power that arbitrates all markets – capital. Whether a market is a fair way of appropriating human resources is a separate matter, but on the matter of appropriating the resource of human consciousness, the danger is absolute: it is the path to Fascism, as we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. Propagandists, like Frank Luntz, George Lakoff, and Clotaire Rapaille, would seek to design an interface into our desire, little buttons that manipulate a part in order to manipulate the whole – and all you need to press a button is capital. Corporations such as Forrester and IDC seek to create a user manual to the humanoid, a handy guide that shows which buttons to push and how to amplify the effects of a push through identity/wedge politics – and all you need to give for this helpful info is capital. But as these subversive manipulations are externally induced into our consciousness, their presence as part of the whole is not coherent, and inducing cognitive dissonance is hardly in the rational self interest of the individual, or eventually, of society. While the mind of a human being is an unquestionably hardy creation, the end point for an individual in a market of desire is the same desperate, psychotic insanity that occurs any time that irrational desire overwhelms conscious will – effects seen in the likes of Joseph Stack, Malik Hasan, Jack Bedell, and the very same fundamentalist terrorist suicide bombers that our war on terror is targeted against.

I conclude that democracy powered through the derivative of free will is not a democracy of human beings, but a pathological ideology that leads to fascism, which, we reiterate for clarity, we understand as totalitarianism developed by and channeled through mass movements. For it is through this ideology and its utilitarian view of humanity that the Patriot Act, which sanctions dictatorial powers for the executive branch as long as it can maintain a state of perpetual war, was authored by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. It was through this ideology that silent, warrantless surveillance of American citizens was demanded by John Yoo and the Bush Six in good faith. And it follows only from this ideology that a justification of torture and reduction of human beings to mere flesh-covered containers of information is possible in good faith. The ideology of John Yoo is the ideology of Fascism and THAT, in its totality, is what we have come here today to protest.  It is time for the rest of us regular and reasonable people to assert that moral responsibility, not torture, is what we must derive from good faith.

A Treatise on the Existentialist Philosophies of Kierkegaard and Heidegger in Macross 7 Final Battle

leave a comment »

Original @ Jan 16 2010.  needless to say, pretty much murdered the thread… also, in related news. anyways back to the show.

It takes just a single song of Rock N Roll…

I’m so very glad that there’s finally an existentialism thread here in the LF cool forum. Existentialism is like, wow, just so cool. Yeah this, yeah, this is the place where its at, you got the hoppin’ crowd here, that there Fyador Postoevsky, Mr. Kirkegard of course, Jonathon Larson, Hidedigger, my fav lil Applehead, and of course the transcendent spiritual force behind that that epic anime adventure, Macross 7. Who could forget their magnum opus, A Voice Reaching Across the Galaxy, where our hero Basara confronts the all-consuming nihilism of The Other HEAD-ON with the full glory of the human spirit? Here, we have truely the artistic companion of Being and Time and Nothingness – the most beautiful depiction of the actualization of Dasein and the will to impose existence before essence in a superdouble catchphrase whammy-jammy for the ages!
BA-SA-RA

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/m…kyxRt2dhrFwxMpg

Lucky for you the link above is in high def and subbed beautifully… but here’s a youtube as not to break up the flow of this post…  jump to around 14:00 in the HD video or 5:00 in the embedded youtube and prepare to read some backstory…

Echoing away in-to the sky…

What we have here, oh dear oh dear, is quite a problem. Lord Geppelnich, leader of the a high-flying weaponoid aliens called protodevilin, has hatched a plot to absorb all Spiritia in the Macross region in order to use it to power a sort of biblical paradise for his people. (although they aren’t really people, but protodevilin) Sounds like a pretty evil plan, but, you see, like humans, the Protodevilin need to Spiritia Energy to live, the life force energy generated by human life, but not by protodevilin life.  sounds like quite a sticky pckle if you ask me.

Our wayward hero, the famous pacifist musician Basara, chart-topping hunk, is humanity’s greatest weapon. At the start of the series, a rich eccentric leaves him a giantic ultra-advanced battle gear piloted with an electric guitar-hero controller, well, just because he was such a big fan. Everyone was, like, WTF???? Why should this retard grasshat have control of one of mankind’s most powerful weapons?? But, it turns out, unbeknownst to all, that not only is Basara, like, the best pilot in the history of EVAR, but also that Basara’s music generates a Spirita energy so powerful and so pure that the protodevilin just can’t handle it.  …sorta like me when i get a big glass of chocolate weed milk.A nyways so there you have it.

Look off into the light of dawn…

here, we, at the climax. Basara and the human forces assault Geppelnich’s fortress (actually a fittingy MONSTEROUS transformation of Geppelnich himself.) They sing for the people… but something goes wrong… REALL WRONG. The spiritia absorbion has passed a critical limit, oh no – TOO MUCH SPIRITIA!!! – accidentally creating a sort of spiritia black hole that threatens to engulf the entire universe!  GEPPELNICH IS THE ALL-CONSUMING NIHILISM OF tHE oTHER MADE FLESH.

and soon all your troubles start to…

aahHH~h… so powerful… The humans cannot stand this ever more brutal assault. They sing, but they sing not just to sing, but because they see basara sing…. and then there’s basara too, but he sings not because he can see himself sing, but because the others see him singing. “Love will saaave, the world” – um ya right, just keep tellin yourself that sweetharts. Now slowly the singing fades away, melting away, you could say in fact, to that cackling madness of the awful horrible no-good inauthentic life, that “bad faith” of derived control of the Other’s Other…

MELT ALL AWAY…

The persona of Basara too melts all away. He is alone now, left with only his oldest, truest memory of his self – his oldest, truest desire. Here, severed from the universe and his physical body, he is confronted with the mountain, that gaddanged, ever-mountainous mountain, that which could be so large yet so fleeting.. what is it? what is this mountain?? why must i sing to the mountain?? why do i play my guitar! ahhhH~~ , alone with the mountain!  at last i understands! I SING TO THE MOUNTAIN BECAUSE ITS A MOUNTAIN AND I SING! I PLAY MY GUITAR TO MAKE IT MOVE! ITS GOTTA MOVE!!! BECAUSE BASARA! IS BECOMING! MOVEMENT!!!

<h1><font color={“rED”?>GTODAY IMG GONNA MAKE YOU MVOe !!!!!!!!![b?]

NOW LISTEN TO MHY SONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DASEIN LIVES~!!!~ A RESOUNDING GLORY AS SUNG BY THE EFFLORESCENT BLOOM ~!!!~ RE-EMERGING RECURSIVELY INTO ITSE ~!!! ~ELF IS AN EBULLIEN!~T AND PER~HAPS EVEN !!! VIOLENT BIRTH !!~~~!!!!~~!!! A  FULLY ENGAGED PERSPECTIVE oN DASEIN CAN ASSERT ITS DESIRE TO LIVE WITHIN THE UNIVERSE IN THE HERE AND NOW!!!~~!!!!! ONLY DASE!IN CAN LEAP PAST THE EM!PTINESS OF THE HUMAN CON!SCIOUSNESS BY HIS FREECHOICE ALONE!@!!!! BASARA HAS REMEMBE!RED WHO HE IS – HE IS BECOMING MOVE~MENT! AND SO HE MOVES! NOW LISTEN TO HIS SONG!

AaaHHHAHhhH~~~ NO!!! What’s this? Basara’s physical body was too far damaged from the previous attack! Now, But what’s this? We’re moving sofast now!We’re saved! Dasein expands to the whole of the environment, of course it cannot be bound by physical restraints! DASEIN IS BEING THERE, and by there, I mean where it is! A being is everywhere it is engaged, both the physical environment and the social mind. Sivil, a confused protodevilin fascinated with Basara’s joyful song, in an ephiphany, has finally understood this source of Basara’s power, and that she too can sing her own song, and that she too can create spiritia energy! So here she is! She arrives just in time! She will carry his body! He will sing his song! unstoppable! FLY AWAY~! FLY AWAY~! TAKE OFF INTO THE SKY~!!

But physical assault is impossible! Say, didn’t we just learn that Only the power of song CAN MAKE THAT MOUNTAIN MOVE!! so let’s keep trying until it moves! oh, move~ TRY AGAIN~! it sings~! TRY AGAIN~! at last, the joy spirita creation! BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT~!

this feeling running through me…

the! overwhelming, breathtaking, orgasmic! beauty of spirita creation!

It takes just a single song of Rock N Roll…

Written by meowywowy

June 24, 2010 at 7:37 am