“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Monday, September 5, 2016
Less than Nothing...
“an entity is free when it can deploy its immanent potential without being impeded by any external obstacle.”
― Slavoj Žižek, "Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism"
If the definitions listed above are true, then how could "external forces" possibly impede, limit, or restrict the innerworkings of an individual's MIND?
A person's imagined vision of "reality" is entirely shaped by it's experiences in the external world and forces outside one's mind. Are you a 'realist"? Thenn you are being restricted by those forces.
In fact, if you look at the link above, you can see how we attach our "Jouissance" to this imagined "reality", and thereby "desire" our continued "mental" existence "within" it's confines. It otherwise takes "effort" (mental/physical) to go outside them.
Intellectuals never cease trying to make simple, self-evident truths appear more complex, challenging and perplexing than they need to be.
I see the process as ab in-game they agree to play among themselves to justify a great deal of time wasting which they pass off to the ignorant, incurious masses as a search for Enlightenment.
In truth it is a devious form of self-aggrandizement. The emperor is naked.
Call me an "anti-intellectual" if you like. I assure you it won't faze me a bit. };^)>
So, what do you think of when you see a statement like this: “an entity is free when it can deploy its immanent potential without being impeded by any external obstacle.” Negative liberty? Positive liberty? Neither? Both?
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.
Unless you are determined to believe each of us is solely the product of whatever forces have acted upon us, and therefore, have nothing innate of our own to sustain us, we are always free to think our own thoughts. We just aren't free to express them, unless we're willing to take the consequences, which might be as mild as censure and rebuke, or as severe as ostracism and even death by stoning –– or worse.
15 comments:
IMMANENT
Existing or operating within; inherent.
"The protection of liberties is immanent in constitutional arrangements”
(In reference to God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.
remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
Philosophy. (of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it.
Compare transeunt.
Theology. (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc.
Compare transcendent.
Remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
Other sources have said immanent refers to things that exist solely in the mind.
Does that mean the word is a synonym for IMAGINARY?
If the definitions listed above are true, then how could "external forces" possibly impede, limit, or restrict the innerworkings of an individual's MIND?
A person's imagined vision of "reality" is entirely shaped by it's experiences in the external world and forces outside one's mind. Are you a 'realist"? Thenn you are being restricted by those forces.
In fact, the symbolic medium of language through which your "reality" is mediated is entirely "externally given".
In fact, if you look at the link above, you can see how we attach our "Jouissance" to this imagined "reality", and thereby "desire" our continued "mental" existence "within" it's confines. It otherwise takes "effort" (mental/physical) to go outside them.
ie - logocentrism.
Less than nothing?
Profitable sexual harassment:
Gretchen Carlson gets $20 m from Fox. Here harasser, Roger Ailes, $40 m. Not bad for a day's (not) work.
Source.
"her".
@ FT :)
---
Funny how both ends of that sexual harassment game paid out, eh Gert? The only loser was Murdoch.
Intellectuals never cease trying to make simple, self-evident truths appear more complex, challenging and perplexing than they need to be.
I see the process as ab in-game they agree to play among themselves to justify a great deal of time wasting which they pass off to the ignorant, incurious masses as a search for Enlightenment.
In truth it is a devious form of self-aggrandizement. The emperor is naked.
Call me an "anti-intellectual" if you like. I assure you it won't faze me a bit. };^)>
So, what do you think of when you see a statement like this: “an entity is free when it can deploy its immanent potential without being impeded by any external obstacle.” Negative liberty? Positive liberty? Neither? Both?
"It follows that a frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. Where it is to be drawn is a matter of argument, indeed of haggling. Men are largely interdependent, and no man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others.
The only loser was Murdoch.
Pocket change though.
Unless you are determined to believe each of us is solely the product of whatever forces have acted upon us, and therefore, have nothing innate of our own to sustain us, we are always free to think our own thoughts. We just aren't free to express them, unless we're willing to take the consequences, which might be as mild as censure and rebuke, or as severe as ostracism and even death by stoning –– or worse.
It is your "inalienable" right to think what you will. As such, it is also your ONLY right. ;)
Post a Comment