constant escape
winter withered, warm
But it would fit that dichotomy you just laid out. You really think neoliberalism won't subsume a genuine environmentalism? I really don't think its that surprising.
Acts of Resistance
- Thread starter version
- Start date
-
- Tags
- unleash the bees
constant escape
winter withered, warm
It would be a symptom of the liberal/neoliberal hegemony, which certainly wouldn't be without flaw, but as far as hegemonies go, it could be a step toward greater synthesis of interests. The primary opposition economically would be the local-first, or nation-first approaches, no?
I mean, I believe the progressive talk of the silicon valley types, and I just assume that the poop is buried in some other, perhaps more benign, location.
I mean, I believe the progressive talk of the silicon valley types, and I just assume that the poop is buried in some other, perhaps more benign, location.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Not sure if this is just speaking to those in certain ideological lineages of Marxism, or if it can speak to those untouched by this tree. And maybe its primarily speaking to those to are intellectually/academically inclined.
Just had a thought prompted by Biden's comment about what he feels compelled to teach his kids and what black parents feel compelled to teach their kids, the crux being that he doesn't have to teach his kids fo act in fear, and thus live in fear.
It was a strangely straightforward example of a swelling suspicion I, and I suspect other social progressives, have had for for some time now. For me, perhaps around since six months ago. That is, the trend and the suspicion of it have both been swelling, the former ahead of the latter.
The suspicion being that the dominant/hegemonic ideology, that which progressive discourse has been treating as this omnibigoted goliath, is actually being affected by progressive ideology.
Part of the problem, or perhaps the base of the problem, is that the social progressive seems to have established their identity as a revolutionary reaction to the hegemonic/dominant/orthodox ideology, under the impression that this dominant ideology is fixed in its opposition our values.
I think its a sort of solidification of the academic left's identifiction with the Marxist subject, the subject that is constantly exerting a force back upward to some dominant, miasmatic and oppressive force.
I'm arguing, in very abstract terms, that the identity of the Marxist compels them to act in a certain way to forces that act on them from above, from a privileged perspective.
Anyway, the development in question is a liberalization of that dominant/hegemonic force, which can also be interpreted as a hegemonization of liberalism. Because of how I argue the Marxist orients their identity in relation to other identities, and by extension how that influence affects those less explicitly progressive, this development is felt as a seismic shift, to those who are sufficiently attuned to such things.
What is to be done, when the dominant force you have been trying desperately to bring down actually adopts your beliefs-against-it and thrives despite them?
The crazy part is: this liberalization of hegemony, or this hegemonization of liberalism, can be felt as a gradual victory of egalitarian values, a sort of slow purgation of bigotry and local-first sentiments.
The even crazier part is: it may actually be. Not only may it be felt naively as a victory, but it may withstand the audit/critique of the skeptical.
In both of those realities, the rise of (Neo)liberalism may actually be a victory - or rather, their judgement of it as being victorious will not be proven wrong.
Perhaps the primary reason I am disturbed by this otherwise ostensibly positive turn of events, is that it seems to more promisingly lead to a much more technologically advanced, and necessarily more totalitarian, global state/state-system.
So the major beliefs/axioms at play here:
The belief that the social liberalism of today appears to be globally winning out against the social conservatism of today. Not every battle, but the war.
The belief that this appearance is substantial, that it can be relied upon to serve as a reflection of our reality, that it can be trusted.
The belief that this victory will be secured in a meaningful and sustainable way, and serve to define further, higher states of cultural differentiation and evolution
-
Just to name a few points at which this whole string of reasoning could branch off into other contingencies, other lines/branches of reasoning, other variations on the map-in-drawing.
The detection and navigation of these contingencies, however, doesn't seem to be a strong suit of our cognition. Or perhaps the muscle has atrophied.
Then again, maybe that only applies to the average cognition of the set, or some subset, of demographics which I would be classified within. The problem of assuming the universal is in assuming that the absolute is absolute from every angle, that the center from your angle is the center from every angle.
This is the higher dimensionality I'm arguing can be accessed if we can modulate our cognitions a certain way, a higher dimension that many here have tasted to variously inarticulable/sublime extents. Not sure if its possible, but I can lean on my faith here, the faith that the higher order will be actualized one way or the other. By learning to navigate beyond our established reality, and through a sort of meta-matrix of possible realities, we may be able to circumvent, remedy, or even synthesize visceral ideological conflicts.
...I say "meta-matrix" because it, the concept just asserted above, would be a matrix of matrices, each possible reality a matrix. The matter of each reality/matrix is ideology, the particular system of values that is developed within that particular reality. The formation of this matter is experience, both in the sense of experience informing your values, and experience being the cutting edge of existence.
Anyway, the if we can learn to steer through this meta-matrix, rather than merely drift through it, we may be able to better work around what has effectively been considered human nature.
One symbolic rendition of this meta-matrix would be the colony/woods/taboo-site map mentioned in the alt-right thread. That map is a much more differentiated map than the meta-matrix is. Both are maps, but the latter is much more radical and pluripotent, as a stem cell is to its more specified intensities.
Just had a thought prompted by Biden's comment about what he feels compelled to teach his kids and what black parents feel compelled to teach their kids, the crux being that he doesn't have to teach his kids fo act in fear, and thus live in fear.
It was a strangely straightforward example of a swelling suspicion I, and I suspect other social progressives, have had for for some time now. For me, perhaps around since six months ago. That is, the trend and the suspicion of it have both been swelling, the former ahead of the latter.
The suspicion being that the dominant/hegemonic ideology, that which progressive discourse has been treating as this omnibigoted goliath, is actually being affected by progressive ideology.
Part of the problem, or perhaps the base of the problem, is that the social progressive seems to have established their identity as a revolutionary reaction to the hegemonic/dominant/orthodox ideology, under the impression that this dominant ideology is fixed in its opposition our values.
I think its a sort of solidification of the academic left's identifiction with the Marxist subject, the subject that is constantly exerting a force back upward to some dominant, miasmatic and oppressive force.
I'm arguing, in very abstract terms, that the identity of the Marxist compels them to act in a certain way to forces that act on them from above, from a privileged perspective.
Anyway, the development in question is a liberalization of that dominant/hegemonic force, which can also be interpreted as a hegemonization of liberalism. Because of how I argue the Marxist orients their identity in relation to other identities, and by extension how that influence affects those less explicitly progressive, this development is felt as a seismic shift, to those who are sufficiently attuned to such things.
What is to be done, when the dominant force you have been trying desperately to bring down actually adopts your beliefs-against-it and thrives despite them?
The crazy part is: this liberalization of hegemony, or this hegemonization of liberalism, can be felt as a gradual victory of egalitarian values, a sort of slow purgation of bigotry and local-first sentiments.
The even crazier part is: it may actually be. Not only may it be felt naively as a victory, but it may withstand the audit/critique of the skeptical.
In both of those realities, the rise of (Neo)liberalism may actually be a victory - or rather, their judgement of it as being victorious will not be proven wrong.
Perhaps the primary reason I am disturbed by this otherwise ostensibly positive turn of events, is that it seems to more promisingly lead to a much more technologically advanced, and necessarily more totalitarian, global state/state-system.
So the major beliefs/axioms at play here:
The belief that the social liberalism of today appears to be globally winning out against the social conservatism of today. Not every battle, but the war.
The belief that this appearance is substantial, that it can be relied upon to serve as a reflection of our reality, that it can be trusted.
The belief that this victory will be secured in a meaningful and sustainable way, and serve to define further, higher states of cultural differentiation and evolution
-
Just to name a few points at which this whole string of reasoning could branch off into other contingencies, other lines/branches of reasoning, other variations on the map-in-drawing.
The detection and navigation of these contingencies, however, doesn't seem to be a strong suit of our cognition. Or perhaps the muscle has atrophied.
Then again, maybe that only applies to the average cognition of the set, or some subset, of demographics which I would be classified within. The problem of assuming the universal is in assuming that the absolute is absolute from every angle, that the center from your angle is the center from every angle.
This is the higher dimensionality I'm arguing can be accessed if we can modulate our cognitions a certain way, a higher dimension that many here have tasted to variously inarticulable/sublime extents. Not sure if its possible, but I can lean on my faith here, the faith that the higher order will be actualized one way or the other. By learning to navigate beyond our established reality, and through a sort of meta-matrix of possible realities, we may be able to circumvent, remedy, or even synthesize visceral ideological conflicts.
...I say "meta-matrix" because it, the concept just asserted above, would be a matrix of matrices, each possible reality a matrix. The matter of each reality/matrix is ideology, the particular system of values that is developed within that particular reality. The formation of this matter is experience, both in the sense of experience informing your values, and experience being the cutting edge of existence.
Anyway, the if we can learn to steer through this meta-matrix, rather than merely drift through it, we may be able to better work around what has effectively been considered human nature.
One symbolic rendition of this meta-matrix would be the colony/woods/taboo-site map mentioned in the alt-right thread. That map is a much more differentiated map than the meta-matrix is. Both are maps, but the latter is much more radical and pluripotent, as a stem cell is to its more specified intensities.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Wheres the difficulty in that?
woops
is not like other people
it'd be like idle rich using a paragraph break
constant escape
winter withered, warm
sufi
lala
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/support-haringey-residents-immigration-raid/ i done it though i don't even live in haringey
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Also not true. I'm starting to sympathize with Biden.