Got Leverage?

"The Art of the Deal" isn't Rocket Science.  It's "art"

Can America Shake Empire?  Can Trump?

"Shifting" Past the Post-WWII Consensus

Excerpt from video above:

Liberalism doesn't have an account for unity. It's all about ideas. It's also based upon individual freedom. And individualism does not a society, make. We need reasons to be together. We need reasons for me to consider you my neighbor and not a stranger. Like, there has to be something that binds us. And I think that like you said, Christianity played that role for a while and then a kind of Nationalism played that role, also for a while, but that Nationalism that was completely unmoored from Christianity is what led also to the great wars. ...

There's something about Christianity and Empire that is actually more flexible than Nation. Because Empire has a way to have a loose affiliation to center right so you have some... it's like you have Rome as the center, and you have the Emperor. But it's like if you're in Gaul. It's like your connection to the Emperor is very symbolic, right? It's very ritualized, but it still functions, makes you feel like you're part of something. But it also leaves room for a lot of variation and transformation. One of the things that happened in the modern Nation State is of course a mistaking, or a confusion between unity and uniformity, Right? So you see all the stories, right? So basically, Napoleon eliminates all of the local languages and just imposes French top down, education system top down, a top down bureaucracy that completely is ruled by the by the central thing. And it's already there even in the Enlightenment Kings, right? It's like this, everything is just this top down uniformity. But ancient worlds were just a dance between unity and multiplicity, right? They were dances between adaptation to the local space, and local languages, and local dialects. But then our elites still know Latin, right? But I don't have to know Latin, can speak whatever romance language I speak. But as long as the bishop and the priest know Latin, there's some connection to a unity, right? And so I think that that is a better way. I don't know how to live that out in the modern world. But what I mean is that you can see that we've radicalized identity, and that's one of the things that led to this fascist-communist opposition, is that it's like uniformity or flatness.

There's another aspect of, maybe it's insignificant now but one thing I have noticed over the last 5-10 years is that terms like Nazism were so overused that no one really believes it anymore. Well, a lot of people no longer believe, it doesn't have the edge that it did because everything's called Nazi. But I say that as a little glimmer of hope that maybe things are moving in a positive way.

...and the Dawning of the Technofeudal Age

Adam Curtis, "Shifty"

What's My Part in this Band of Attention Seekers?

Originality - The Original Sin?

Moo!

btw - I HATE the Tuba and REFUSE to Play it!  Now Trumpet...

...Trumpet will attract me a Strumpet!

AdS/ CFT

Are Gravity and Time Emergent Properties that Don't Really Exist Yet  Emerge through Entanglement from Thermal Properties on a flat 2D Quantum Space into 3D?

Welcome to Sphereland, home of the 'Flat' Earth Society!

The motion of "Time" but without any corners...

From the Jowett Summary of Plato's "Laws"

But first I must pray the Gods to assist at the demonstration of their own existence—if ever we are to call upon them, now is the time. Let me hold fast to the rope, and enter into the depths: Shall I put the question to myself in this form?—Are all things at rest, and is nothing in motion? or are some things in motion, and some things at rest? 'The latter.' And do they move and rest, some in one place, some in more? 'Yes.' There may be (1) motion in the same place, as in revolution on an axis, which is imparted swiftly to the larger and slowly to the lesser circle; and there may be motion in different places, having sometimes (2) one centre of motion and sometimes (3) more. (4) When bodies in motion come against other bodies which are at rest, they are divided by them, and (5) when they are caught between other bodies coming from opposite directions they unite with them; and (6) they grow by union and (7) waste by dissolution while their constitution remains the same, but are (8) destroyed when their constitution fails. There is a growth from one dimension to two, and from a second to a third, which then becomes perceptible to sense; this process is called generation, and the opposite, destruction. We have now enumerated all possible motions with the exception of two. 'What are they?' Just the two with which our enquiry is concerned; for our enquiry relates to the soul. There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. 'Granted.' (9) That which moves and is moved by another is the ninth kind of motion; (10) that which is self-moved and moves others is the tenth. And this tenth kind of motion is the mightiest, and is really the first, and is followed by that which was improperly called the ninth. 'How do you mean?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that which is moved by itself? Nothing can be affected by any transition prior to self-motion. Then the first and eldest principle of motion, whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will be the second. 'True.' Let me ask another question:

What is the name which is given to self-motion when manifested in any material substance? 'Life.' And soul too is life? 'Very good.' And are there not three kinds of knowledge—a knowledge (1) of the essence, (2) of the definition, (3) of the name? And sometimes the name leads us to ask the definition, sometimes the definition to ask the name. For example, number can be divided into equal parts, and when thus divided is termed even, and the definition of even and the word 'even' refer to the same thing. 'Very true.' And what is the definition of the thing which is named 'soul'? Must we not reply, 'The self-moved'? And have we not proved that the self-moved is the source of motion in other things? 'Yes.' And the motion which is not self-moved will be inferior to this? 'True.' And if so, we shall be right in saying that the soul is prior and superior to the body, and the body by nature subject and inferior to the soul? 'Quite right.' And we agreed that if the soul was prior to the body, the things of the soul were prior to the things of the body? 'Certainly.' And therefore desires, and manners, and thoughts, and true opinions, and recollections, are prior to the length and breadth and force of bodies. 'To be sure.' In the next place, we acknowledge that the soul is the cause of good and evil, just and unjust, if we suppose her to be the cause of all things? 'Certainly.' And the soul which orders all things must also order the heavens? 'Of course.' One soul or more? More; for less than two are inconceivable, one good, the other evil. 'Most true.' The soul directs all things by her movements, which we call will, consideration, attention, deliberation, opinion true and false, joy, sorrow, courage, fear, hatred, love, and similar affections. These are the primary movements, and they receive the secondary movements of bodies, and guide all things to increase and diminution, separation and union, and to all the qualities which accompany them—cold, hot, heavy, light, hard, soft, white, black, sweet, bitter; these and other such qualities the soul, herself a goddess, uses, when truly receiving the divine mind she leads all things rightly to their happiness; but under the impulse of folly she works out an opposite result. For the controller of heaven and earth and the circle of the world is either the wise and good soul, or the foolish and vicious soul, working in them. 'What do you mean?' If we say that the whole course and motion of heaven and earth is in accordance with the workings and reasonings of mind, clearly the best soul must have the care of the heaven, and guide it along that better way. 'True.' But if the heavens move wildly and disorderly, then they must be under the guidance of the evil soul. 'True again.' What is the nature of the movement of the soul? We must not suppose that we can see and know the soul with our bodily eyes, any more than we can fix them on the midday sun; it will be safer to look at an image only. 'How do you mean?' Let us find among the ten kinds of motion an image of the motion of the mind. You remember, as we said, that all things are divided into two classes; and some of them were moved and some at rest. 'Yes.' And of those which were moved, some were moved in the same place, others in more places than one. 'Just so.' The motion which was in one place was circular, like the motion of a spherical body; and such a motion in the same place, and in the same relations, is an excellent image of the motion of mind. 'Very true.' The motion of the other sort, which has no fixed place or manner or relation or order or proportion, is akin to folly and nonsense. 'Very true.' After what has been said, it is clear that, since the soul carries round all things, some soul which is either very good or the opposite carries round the circumference of heaven. But that soul can be no other than the best. Again, the soul carries round the sun, moon, and stars, and if the sun has a soul, then either the soul of the sun is within and moves the sun as the human soul moves the body; or, secondly, the sun is contained in some external air or fire, which the soul provides and through which she operates; or, thirdly, the course of the sun is guided by the soul acting in a wonderful manner without a body. 'Yes, in one of those ways the soul must guide all things.' And this soul of the sun, which is better than the sun, whether driving him in a chariot or employing any other agency, is by every man called a God? 'Yes, by every man who has any sense.' And of the seasons, stars, moon, and year, in like manner, it may be affirmed that the soul or souls from which they derive their excellence are divine; and without insisting on the manner of their working, no one can deny that all things are full of Gods. 'No one.' And now let us offer an alternative to him who denies that there are Gods. Either he must show that the soul is not the origin of all things, or he must live for the future in the belief that there are Gods.

Problem Solvers vs. Crusaders

Deleuze and Finnegans Wake

SchizoAnalyses vs. Schizophrenic Daughters

We're ALL in 2nd Order Observation Mode Now!

Always Performing for Others, yet Watching Ourselves in that Performance.

The Commodification of Land, Labout, Capital, and now, Personal Information (aka- The Self)

Who Really Ran the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration?

Meet Mike and Tom Donilon aka - Blackrock.