Isn't it the classic freedom to eat cake, to diversify an assumed lesuire and to choose out of the diversity which is precisely the commodity-spectacle of a predisposed array, clearwrapped in unitised portion control?
Isn't the supermarket the correct analogy where the consumer is generically trained to value a freedom of choice precisely fetishised by the brand alternatives of late capitalism, the wonderfully smart play of vacuity by which the reader if the labels can rustle up preference, advice, loyalty, thrift, all the bound emotional habits of an old humanism now afloat within the play of signs within which the consumer's arbitration is a highly efficient instrument to maintain market saturation and to ration the efficiencies of decision control?
But then the painstaking part of me would audit the means by which those layers are distinguished. Arguably, the manner in which those layers are stacked, the diagram we create, is itself loaded with the kind of human artifacts indicative of any number of those layers. Not familiar with Leary though, so perhaps this was taken into account.you can posit stacked systems though. so submission to the mammalian territorial system precludes lifting yourself out of that system, acheiving the meta view of that system, and thereby landing in the 'next one up'. that's how Learys 8 circuit thing works for instance
I mean, If we are to separate out various levels of systems, we may be privileging unessential aspects. Sort of like occam's razor, now that I think about it, but not quite. Its not just that we are going for the simplest model, all other things being equal. We are also going for the model that posits as essential the most essential, which is arguably an eternally ongoing task.i dont understand that sorry Stan.