DearDiary.2009-01-15
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:12 AM, James Allen <abey2@comcast.net> wrote: > Jim:
> Have you been reading Jacque Derrida, the French phenomenologist? I found your short letter to be deeply meaningful and I for one have a ton of shit I would like to unlearn.
Indeed, I have been reacquainted with a kindred manner of thought, as one led to universally deconstructing belief systems in phenomenology, epistemology, ethics, culture, politics, economics and particularly in myself
"Derrida explains that "the objectivity of a structure ... is tied to the concrete genesis which must make it possible" and that "Husserl refuses, and will always refuse, to accept the intelligibility and normativity of this universal structure as manna fallen from a "heavenly place" ... or as an eternal truth created by an infinite reason". This means that even the most sophisticated and convincing system of thought is vulnerable to questions of how this system of thought was constructed. Deconstruction therefore ambitiously challenges ways of thinking that are often considered most objective by asking how they came to be attributed the status of objectivity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
For me this encapsulates the distinction between rhetoric and objectivity which is infinitely deconstructed prior to its genesis. The objective is realized by originary complexity rather than original purity. There are no first principles really. I am generally impatient with philosophical discourse and its illusory guise of disambiguation. Objectivity involves ambiguization. Therefore only ambiguous logic, such as quantum logic, can be holistically objective.
That being said, the philosophical imperative becomes formalizing the methodology of objectivity in the realm of the metalogical, a feat which apparently confounded Derrida, his predicessors and his followers, and instead led largely to the bastardization of deconstructionism in many illegitimate forms. As Marx wrote in “Theses for Feuerbach” (1845), - "The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, to change it".
Such has become my passion and raison. I fancy myself as a more of a constructionist, than deconstructionist, as construction is the end enabled by deconstruction, and is to become, in my view, the immanent philosophical imperative.
The popularity and influence of Derrida is one hopeful sign, and one front, in the deconstruction of philosophy necessary to its continuing reconstruction on an objective bases. That he stated, "there are few philosophers", is somewhat discouraging but there are many threads such as the constructivist, intuitionist, general semantics and even Scientology, which if they could be deconstructed and assimilated into the new constructionist objectivism. In many ways human philosophical legacy does more to obscure objectivity that enable it. There are those who are inclined to be the keepers of the scrolls and tie the immanent transcendence of philosophy to its rich legacy. But few are inclined to brave its deep waters and it is both necessary and reasonable that change includes those who frolic in its shallows. Deconstruction, after all is going back to basics and denial of traditional, common, and simple truth. It is primarily a habit of disbelief in the obvious in the search for greater understanding and the writing of the new scrolls of objective philosophy.
It is a disruptive manner of thought that challenges all the ideals we hold dear and serve to enable our decisive action in our world. It strips us of all certainty. The very nature of truth is changed from absolute to tenuous. We can no longer make any general statement without being wrong. The very notion of being becomes uncontainable. The singular loses its independent substance.
> This discussion has definitely taken a turn towards rational reflection and hopefully towards a rational rethinking of money and our relationship to it.
To be clear, rational reflection in the common manner is does not enforce objectivity. It does not work. Objective reflection requires that each notion is decomposed into into the multiplicity of its genesis and composed into a synthesis that is incrementally and inconclusive. It is a manner of thinking quite distinct from rationalization which exhibits actual realization distinct from imagination. It is a process of continuous improvement rather than completion where the validity of induction is always in doubt. It is uncommon intelligence in the realm of our collective stupidity.
Construction of such an epistemology of phenomenology provides a foundation of actual intelligence. Our collective application of such a methodology realizes our collective intelligence incrementally.
> Obviously ignoring the constant screams of advertisers and saving money is bringing the system to its knees.
To its end and new beginning let us pray.
Wall street loses made saving dominant over spending, while starving the system of active capital and active markets. Additional debt can only prolong the agony.
At the same time we have great opportunities for the industry of humanity in becoming responsible stewards of the earth and beyond and cooperatively maximizing the opportunity of every individual to thrive and contribute to the richness of humanity and the quality of life.
Changing how people think could take a thousand years. The global information revolution however actualizes the possibility that we may find a consensus for collective belief and action in a fraction of the time required historically. The ideals of the American revolution, for example, might finally be realized.
The great danger is that our collective action is without objectivity and we allow unexpected consequences to subvert our good intentions. A systematic, holistic, natural, evolutionary progression, hedging all bets, capitalizing on minimalistic systematic interference, deconstructing what is, while constructing what can be, is possible. Discipline rather than great ideas is the primary determinant of success.
It will take an infinity of millennia for us to solve all our problems and realize our full potential. But we ought to be able to develop a consensus that monetary reform is essential and collaborate on actualizing a minimal action to realize that one thing independently.
I suggest that collectively providing a stable interest free money supply and capital for real value generation are our most immediate needs, as well as a long term needs, in the enablement of our ability to fulfill our potential.
We can actualize these now by proactively using alternative capitalization and alternative currencies. We can promote collective monetary reform and capitalization of real value generation.
Do we have a consensus on this? If so, why is it not being realized in a timely manner, and how can we fix that? If not, why not? What is the disagreement and what are the practically arbitratible synthesises? How can the neoreconstructionists avoid rationalization and incrementally develop collective intelligence in collective action. How do we work smarter rather than harder in the realization of our dream? How do we actualize our assimilation while avoiding enslavement to the powerful and the tyranny of the majority.
Jim http://MonetaryReformAct.org http://InformationPhysics.com
> Clarence
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM, maria odete madeira
wrote:
> "Like Nietzsche and Artaud, like Blanchot and other shared admirations, Deleuze never lost sight of this alliance between necessity and the aleatory,
Such serendipity or providence is expression of the Golden Theorem, that what has a finite probability happens in finite time.
> between chaos and the untimely.
Murphy's Law, what can do wrong, will go wrong.
Together leading ultimately, to me, to pluralism and the law of exceptions, that there is an exception to every law except this law. And that the categorical imperative is not decided until the end of time.
> ... What interests us the most is the analysis of capitalism as an immanent system
Immanent since capital trumps all power on earth but that of nature. Yet there can be no plane of immanence without possible transcendence. There is no persistently extant singularity, as Deleuze himself proclaimed before his death, there is no ultimate immanence except immanence itself.
> that constantly pushes back its proper limits,
Insidious in its proliferation, a thriving ecology of capital has been pervasive, even in communist countries. It is seemingly inescapable. Capital and power are virtually the same thing in practice. It controls our commerce, industry, media and governments. It rewrites history and programs our beliefs.
> and that always finds them again on a larger scale, because the limit is Capital itself.""
It always expands the money supply to a larger scale by what means? In the present era the banking system creates capital out of thin air in the interest of the owners of the world banks. History shows war has been their primary mechanism to capitalize both sides in order to push the proper limits of monetary expansion and expand the money supply.
Suppose the people took control of the money supply, and took the role of the money interests for the good of humanity. Suppose they employed spending to encourage activity and taxing to discourage activity to perturb the chaordic economic system such that it tended toward sustainable growth, freedom and an improved quality of life. Suppose the people never pushed the proper limits of capital and allowed capital to grow limited only by its service to humanity. Could the bullies still dominate? http://sites.google.com/a/monetaryreformact.org/monetary-reform-act/sustainability
The bully, in theory, does not win the evolutionary game. Destruction ultimately destroys itself. The people have always had the power but are trained to serve the money interests and to believe they are doing right doing so. http://WikiWorld.com/EvolutionaryGameTheory
Capitalism is now controlled pluralisticly by the money masters and their stooges. If we instead engineer capital that belongs to the people and control the supply by responsible spending and taxing, how could any force have more power than the people acting in their common interest? If we can engineer a bridge that will not fall down we can surely engineer an economy that won't fall down. If it is possible, the bullies would lose and the people would win.
Otherwise, I fear, Derrida's foreboding is imminent, and the money masters will always arise on a larger scale enslaving the rest of us as lambs to the slaughter despite our feeble attempts at regulation without the people taking control of the money supply.
> http://www.usc.edu/dept/comp-lit/tympanum/1/derrida1.html
To take effective control we need to unlearn all the wrong things we have been led to believe we need to make new habits of pluralism in our thinking and unity in our collective action engineered using objective criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism http://InformationPhysics.com