Public Journal:

That’s right, originally it is Leibniz’ sentence, but later Heidegger were also very intensively busy relating to that sentence. Heidegger meant, inter alia, that in situations of fear nothingness becomes apparent.

"In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts? - Martin Heidegger, “Was ist Metaphysik?”, 1929.My translation ( [-o< or =D> ):

“In the bright night of nothingness of anxiety the original openness of being as such only arises: that it is being - and not nothing. Only because the nothingness is apparently on grouns of the existence (‘Dasein’), the full strangeness of being can come upon us and the fundamental question of metaphysics: Why is there being rather than nothing.” - Martin Heidegger, “What is metaphysics?”, 1929.

“That’s right, originally it is Leibniz’ sentence, but later Heidegger were also very intensively busy relating to that sentence. Heidegger meant, inter alia, that in situations of fear nothingness becomes apparent. “

That’s what I thought. Thanks man! I would also note, here, the paradox involved in knowing that we will all die, but can’t imagine ourselves as not existing. I would also note, not having gotten as far into Heidegger’s original text as you apparently have, a point imparted to me (via secondary text (concerning Anguish (perhaps Anxiety?) in his terms: that there is no solid foundation to anything we can assert: that what we assert ultimately narrows down to assumptions that ultimately float on thin air. In other words, it is an experience of ungroundedness. To bring your quote from Heidegger into the discourse:

“In the bright night of nothingness of anxiety the original openness of being as such only arises: that it is being - and not nothing. Only because the nothingness is apparently on grounds of the existence (‘Dasein’), the full strangeness of being can come upon us and the fundamental question of metaphysics: Why is there being rather than nothing.” - Martin Heidegger, “What is metaphysics?”, 1929.

“Now imagine a perfect nothingness, in a metaphorical sense, needing to become something.
In that sense all perceiving things become the eyes and ears of God:
that which makes nothing something.”

“I think this is artificial, even though it is the substance of much if not most religion. The nothingness, as soon as there is a trying, does not exist - as soon as there is any verb, (no)(thing)(ness) becomes a word that can only relate to itself.
We can only say the word “nothingness” and either tautologically affirm it (“nothingness contains nothing”) or just contemplate the term. But what we are doing is not related to nothing at all, it is relating to ourself.

So the real process here is something trying to become nothing by imagining nothing to become something - i.e. itself.”

On a second run-through, I realize how badly I had misread this (basically fucked it up –mainly based on the term “artificial” which I took as a slight to my point. The main point of the responder is that my point may be coming out of a fundamental fact of existing as a conscious being as compared to not being conscious. This is complicated by the fact that we can never look at nothingness directly which leaves us vulnerable to what we can say about it. Hence the term: artificial.

In order to understand this, we could step towards it via the thought of Chomsky who argued that language is the product of the physiological structures of the brain and how it interacts with its environment and Pinker who elaborates in The Stuff of Thought .

And in this sense, I think we might be able add to the discourse by considering the connection between Being and Nothingness (a metaphysical consideration) to Presence and Absence (a phenomenological one). That way we can move from the speculative to the very fact of conscious existence.

Chomsky is a Leibnizian. He says what Leibniz (1646-1716) has said 300 years before him.

You’ll have to elaborate on that for me, Arminius.

Actually, Chomsky has been signified more a Kantian, then Liebnitzian.

Leibniz (b.t.w.: no “t”), Wolff, Kant - that’s the line from Leibniz to Kant (with some more philosophical “stations” and persons between them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines and persons, amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky’s linguistic theory is based on the philosophy and especially on the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus - New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that Chomsky is at first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but in some aspects (see above: linguistic theory) it is reverse: at first a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let’s say he is a rationalist and idealist.

“New question:
Why speak and not rather not speak?
Out of excess. The language of the birds is the anger of the soul.”

To partially answer your question: because the language of birds can be the joy of the soul as well. It’s a matter of interpretation. And sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. But then I base this on the way my writing style has evolved via a common friend, Satyr, in that while writing I have sometimes felt like a sparrow twittering around on a branch and chirping while he watches from behind his blanket and scowls. In that sense, the chirping can be interpreted as a form of joyful hostility.

That said, to answer your question in a broader sense, and bring it back to the OP: it may well be that we speak to make ourselves and what we think more real to us. In fact, I’m not sure we could even think like we do without the technology of language. In this context, language (as well as speech( becomes an expression of the nothingness becoming something while containing the chaos that has characterized the process that started with the big bang and resulted in the very post before you now. It may well be this relationship between Nothingness, Being, and the chaos implied in the transition from Nothingness to Being that underlies Nietzsche’s claim:

“One must still have inner chaos to give birth to a dancing star.”

It may well be that we speak to give birth to that dancing star.

“The radical Jew and Nazi want that only they are ultimately self-affirming. I want that all are self-affirming, and that the strongest, wisest, luckiest wins, and splits open into a new war.

Nature must war so that we can live.”
*
Strange thing to say in a world that has a nuclear arsenal that could end the world as we know it, or that is facing man made climate change which will require a more cooperative approach to deal with –both of which are perpetuated and accelerated by the competitive nature of producer/consumer Capitalism.

Still, you have to appreciate the resonance and seduction of such an aphorism that plays to our fantasies about our abilities to thrive in such a world.
*
Nature must war (compete (and cooperate (and cooperate so that it can compete (so that we can live.
*
And isn’t survival (with the possibility of the point A to point B justified to the individual (the only thing at stake here? I think here of the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel of the fearlessly fanciful: the basement overmen who would sit in environmentally controlled spaces, their faces blazing in the dim glow of their computer screens, typing and, in between phrases, raising their fists: tight, trembling, and ready for action.
*
“Aphorisms are more than just a “short” or “quick” form of writing and are quite distinct from poetry, although the use of metaphor and imagery is very effective in both. A poem properly evokes a feeling, while an aphorism properly evokes a vantage, a more comprehensive perspective (which of course will often involve our feelings as well). Aphorisms are a very careful and particular kind of concentration of experience, employing opposites, contradictions and various degrees of alternating clarity and vagueness in order to not just state a truth but to give a perspective upon it, most importantly to give something to which the reader is forced to respond, and rather he respond for or against is irrelevant. “

Perhaps a concentrated form of exposition as well? A poetic form that allows the philosopher to deal with the ambiguities they find themselves faced with?
*
“And a talk of aphorisms cannot be complete without talking about the process of creating them. This process is very interesting, as it involves visualizing a complete ‘idea’ from all ‘sides’ at once and visualizing how it forms as an irreducible component-nature, that whole “irreducible complexity” thing that christians are always talking about. In the case of great ideation, this is an apt way of phrasing it. The aphorism must introduce a way into that kind of idea, to the reader otherwise unable to ascend that far up into the heights of truth. ”

I would say that the aphorism is more of a method than anything. And note here that the main inspiration behind Nietzsche’s aphorisms was the bible. He stole their methods of exposition for completely different ends. I would also note Wittgenstein’s use of them driven by his lack of faith in himself as a writer.
*
I started as a musician, then moved on to poetry. Both were a process of accumulating things (riffs, lines of words, etc. (until those things spontaneously came together into a solid whole. Writing did not allow that to happen. It was more linear and a matter of exerting my will.

The aphorism (the way I can compose it in my head (is what makes the writing process worth it.
*
The aphorism lies in that no-man’s land between poetry and the essay.

Now before anyone releases the Kraken on me, or feels the sting of betrayal:
*
When it comes to the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel, that which centers on The Will to Power and turns what should be a denotative and descriptive concept into a prescriptive one, the person that wrote:

“The radical Jew and Nazi want that only they are ultimately self-affirming. I want that all are self-affirming, and that the strongest, wisest, luckiest wins, and splits open into a new war.

Nature must war so that we can live.”

:has, thus far, shown themselves to be far more reasonable and less of an a-hole than the realm of KTS has shown itself to be in its embrace of the sensibility. Hence the mocking tone (a residual effect of KTS( in one of my riffs (an aphorism if you will:

“I think here of the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel of the fearlessly fanciful: the basement overmen who would sit in environmentally controlled spaces, their faces blazing in the dim glow of their computer screens, typing and, in between phrases, raising their fists: tight, trembling, and ready for action.”

:a tone aimed more at the fanatical demagogues of KTS than the poster above. But then I think they would understand that being as familiar (if not more so (with the intellectual wasteland of KTS.
*
Still, it is of that sensibility and warrants the same criticism that I can hopefully relay with a less mocking tone:

First of all, it does appeal to our fanciful nature in that it assumes that the individual is up to thriving in such a brutal environment. This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the Will to Power, if it is strong enough, can overcome the random nature of fate. But no matter how much popular culture might make it seem otherwise, whatever degree of will you might have, you will still be subject to the variables of your environment. You might be the most powerful warrior on the face of the earth. But if a satellite is aiming a bomb at you…. you’re gone, tough guy. The same goes in some post apocalyptic Mad Maxian world if you happen to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, our culture, dominated by producer/consumer Capitalism, will stop at nothing to have you believe otherwise. I mean who wouldn’t want to be like the heroes we are saturated with? But note the discrepancy between the cocky heroics of the soldiers you see about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the large number of soldiers coming back with PTSD. You can’t make a war movie without romanticizing war. As the director of The Big Red One said: the only way to give a movie audience the true feel of war is to start shooting bullets over their heads. But to give you real sense of the way that producer/consumer Capitalism perpetuates the fancy of the Will to Power through popular culture, note the recent movie version of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty with Ben Stiller:

Now when I first heard it was coming out, I was excited given the disappointment of the earlier musical version with Danny Kaye. But as I heard more about it, the excitement dissipated. And in order to understand why, you have to look at the original version written by Thurber in which the protagonist, Walter Mitty, starts as a weak henpecked individual who ends, victoriously, as a weak henpecked individual -that is through the compensation of fantasy. It left you with the same compassion for the main character that Thurber must have felt for him. And, in that sense, Mitty was the antithesis of the Randian hero: that which is also based on fancy but compromised through utter denial. Of course, producer/consumer Capitalism could not help but wind its spindly little fingers into it by changing the story to one in which Mitty went from being a weak henpecked individual to one that actually does something. Pure fancy compared to Thurber’s original intent.

Just put in mind here that if there is anything that Capitalism sells best (for example: reality shows like America’s Got Talent or Who Wants to be Millionaire (it is possibility. The embrace of a post apocalyptic wasteland is not that much different in that it still supports and surrenders to producer/consumer Capitalism.

We should note, as well, the rhizomatic possibilities of the aphorism: the way it allows us to bounce from one point to the other, a process underwritten by the subconscious forces at work in the stream of consciousness: free association. The aphorism, to put it in Deleuzian terms, is an effective tool by which we can write at the edge of what we know and work our way beyond our self.

It’s almost surprising that Deleuze (w/ and without Guattari (did not write in the form when it seems so suitable to his agenda. Even stranger is the almost aphoristic style of Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus papers.
*
I believe it was Mencken who wrote: how would I know what I thought if I didn’t write? In this sense, the aphorism is the recording of thought in its purest.
*
“It is very difficult to learn how to write a real aphorism. But it isn’t so hard to write aphorisms are “ok”. Most people can’t tell the difference, anyway, including most philosophers.”

Yes! But as it is with writing poetry (or any other art form (one must write a lot of them that are just “ok” in order to write a real one.

As Tennyson wrote: a great poet is one who, having spent a lifetime standing in thunderstorms, manages to be struck by lightening 2 or 3 times.

Note: the bulk of Nietzsche’s aphorisms were likely written on his daily walks when his mind was free to do what it willed.
*
But let us not underestimate the danger of such an approach –that is given its susceptibility to impulse. It was in an aphorism that Schopenhauer argued that women should not be allowed in the opera since all they would do is gab through it all.
*
“Son, you can’t just let your mind wander like that. You never know what trouble it will get into.”
*
It is the spontaneity of the aphorism that threatens the elitism of the classical sensibility.
*
Realized today the irony of the progressive idealist now having to be the one that has to defer to Ockham’s razor. While the pro-Capitalists are full of all kinds of complex arguments as to why it is civilization is failing (like a teenager busted at something and throwing everything on the table hoping that something will stick( in other words: rationalization (for the progressive idealist, it is the simplest explanation possible:

That a handful of people are hoarding resources while expecting everyone else to fight for the crumbs that fall off the table.
*
Hence, the threat that the aphorism, in its ease of composition, poses to the classicist who generally allies themselves with producer/consumer Capitalism. Is it not the vindication of being marketable that determines what is of value?

And how marketable is the aphorism?
*
There is something about the mind that likes juxta-positioning one thing on the other: bricolage. What are dreams but the mind and brain sifting randomly through the various units of thought (the qualia (and fusing them together until they find patterns that work and that they can repeat?

Perhaps dreams are aphoristic in nature. Perhaps they are what resist marketability, what insists on our autonomy in the face of the market. Perhaps our dreams, like the aphorism, are for us alone.
*
Sorry about that! Just stepping through the aphorisms and seeing where they take me.
*
Perhaps the aphorism is a form of play.

On the question of why some people seem to seek their own oppression and the irrationality of their arguments rooted in self interest:

“This presumes a great deal I know- but rather than defining the ‘best interests’ of these people for them- they might claim that their best interests are ‘moral’ or ‘principled’ rather than economic or social- I see no other way to make sense of the decisions they end up supporting.”

Yes, many of them will try to do so in the Calvinistic sense of encouraging evil by rewarding the unproductive poor through tax funded social programs. But this only shows itself to be little more rationalization in that it is ultimately economic in that it is motivated by their fear that their resources might be compromised. For all their claims to the “moral” or “principled”, nothing could be more evil than what comes out of the Calvinistic tradition and the despicable notion that our standing with God is somehow expressed through our economic standing in this world. And I’m quite sure there are many Christians who would agree with me on this.

That said, allow me to add a Zizekian twist on this in proposing that such rationalization (including the Calvinistic (does not necessarily indicate a complete lack of compassion for the poor or moral recognition. In fact, I would argue that a lot of right-wing behavior (the hysteria (can result from an overzealous attempt to suppress the moral uncertainty of what they do: the kind of push/pull tension that defines Jouissance as Lacan defined it and was articulated by Zizek throughout many of his writings like this one from Plague of Fantasies:

“It is especially important to bear in mind how the very ‘bureaucratization’ of the crime was ambiguous in its libidinal impact: on the one hand, it enabled (some of) the participants to neutralize the horror and take it as ‘just another job’; on the other, the basic lesson of the perverse ritual also applies here: this ‘bureaucratization’ was in itself the source of an additional jouissance (does it not provide an additional kick if one performs the killing as a complicated administrative-criminal operation? Is it not more satisfying to torture prisoners as part of some orderly procedure –say, the meaningless ‘morning exercises which served only to torment them –didn’t it give another ‘kick’ to the guards satisfaction when they were inflicting pain on their victims not by directly beating them up but in the guise of an activity officially destined to maintain their health?”

Now on one hand, we can associate this with a sociopathic lack of empathy. We can see this in a lot of the rock-star non-chalance that a lot of pro-Capitalists tend to resort to. Take, for instance, Marlee Maitlen’s response to Bill Maher on Real Time when he brought up the issue of man-made climate change:

“Surely Bill, you don’t expect me to ride a bike to work.”

And we can root this kind of approach to Ayn Rand who went from a legitimate argument of being weary of all arguments that an individual is being selfish if they fail to put their social situation over their personal desire to the perfect license of being able to do whatever you want even if it comes at the expense of others. Of course, we mainly see this in the more secular elements of the right which I will later try to establish as subject to the same push/pull moral tension as the other aspect of the right.

But, in order to understand it, we have to look at the more Christian element of the right and ask if they’re completely oblivious to the harm their policies are doing to the poor -that is for the sake of self interest. I would argue that they’re not and that this is why they feel compelled to resort to the hysterical tactics that they do: they have to throw themselves fully into a hysterical belief system because it is the only way they can delude themselves into believing that what they are doing is morally right. Take, for instance, the behaviors of the Tea Party which can be described as being clinically hysterical. Like Lacanian Jouissance, at a sub-conscious level they experience the discomfort of being wrong while at a conscious self-interested level they experience being right.

And given this, we can now see the secular right (the libertarians and Rand-heads (as being like Kierkegaard’s continuation of sin: that which, rather than face the guilt, leans into evil in order to move itself as far beyond its moral failure as it possibly can: chooses pure evil over moral uncertainty. And in that sense, for all the cool airs (that rock star non-chalance ( it takes on, it can equally be seen as an expression of hysteria.

Flirting, to me, is an expression of the inherent creativity of language and is why philosophers like Rorty and Deleuze put so much emphasis on discourse. It is a form of play that seeks the propagation of a given genetic makeup, via resonance and seduction, which makes it significant in evolutionary terms.

And it underlies the very act of engaging in philosophical and intellectual discourse. In fact, if you think about it, every time we engage in discourse, we are basically engaging in a form of flirtation that is inherently creative. And for good reason:

First of all, think about the power of recall involved in pulling up the right word at the right time in order to even form a sentence. In that sense, the very act of being able to form a meaningful sentence seems almost magical. Now consider the creativity involved in a normal conversation. I string words together into a sentence that is unlike any sentence I’ve uttered before. Then you, based on the meaning you extract from it, respond by stringing words together into a sentence that is unlike any you have before. At the same time, we’re both doing so through a loose repetition of things we have said and heard: our new and novel sentences are variations of sentences we have said and heard before. And we engage in this always for some purpose that will serve our ends. This was suggested by Wittgenstein’s concept of the language game and correlates with the evolutionary process of brain plasticity.

Flirting is basically an amplification of this day to day process, because there is way more at stake (once again: the propagation of a given genetic makeup (and lies at the heart of why some people will take it further by trying to write great poetry or philosophy.

First of all, Anthony Garcia, I apologize for inferring that you might be a moron. It was a knee jerk reaction that the drive-by method of philosophizing we engage in on the boards allows too much for. And, too often, I end up regretting it to the point of using my daily 500 word window on redeeming myself –that is as compared to points I could have made on my present reading of Zizek.

That said, I have to take you at your word when you say:

“Argument to what? I don’t see it. What ‘desiring machine’ mean? I don’t see exactly what central point is. I didn’t mean it as a negative comment. Just a neutral, stating that the meaning of this is lost on me. The points seem to be all implied in some way. I want more clarity here. That is all.”

And:

“ In other words I get some of Rory’s idioms and points he has made, I never read Deleuze, so his idioms are lost on me sorry.”

Okay! Fair enough. And you have shown yourself to be a little more reasonable than:

“Discourse is like flirting?? I don’t see it really, and where they are similar in some way, doesn’t strike me as anything profound. What’s this mean to you? Why is this important?”

Setting aside the cheap tactic of badgering, the main problem I have with this (and what suggests a propensity towards heckling rather than honest intellectual inquiry (is that it reminds me of a satirical quote from Roland Barthes’ Mythologies:

“I do not understand. Therefore, you are ignorant.”

And let’s be clear on this: the only agenda I saw at work in your post was a desire to make me seem ignorant without doing any real work, of resorting to the laziness of general statements. As most creative writing classes will hammer into you: show, don’t tell. And it seems to me that you’re doing a lot of telling without showing me anything. Plus that, since you have yet to show me much else, I can’t help but feel that you’re basing your whole process on negativity without making an honest assessment of what it is you are negatively responding to. I’ve seen it a thousand times, not only on these boards, but on commentaries on other boards: the contrarian position (remember you were commenting on a point that had gotten likes (of acting as if negativity is somehow some kind of shortcut to intellectual superiority –when, in fact, all it really suggests is a lot of ego-stroking. And it’s not like this fits the “emperor has no clothes” mythology you might be working from. And while it was wrong of me to infer you might be a moron, what your approach does suggest is a sub-standard approach to intellectual inquiry.

I mean think about it, Anthony: you latched onto the one point you did understand (a point, BTW, that you took from a commenter on my post (then took the time out to make a snide comment about it. Now how does that not make you a heckler? It just seems to me that the solution to your problem (and it is explicitly your problem (is really pretty simple:

Should you see something with my name on it, don’t buy the fucking book!

Furthermore, don’t make yourself seem like a common redneck by commenting on things you admittedly know nothing about. It would be like me claiming that mathematics is complete nonsense because I don’t understand them. Stroking one’s ego and snarling “Bah Humbug!” is really an unflattering approach to creative and intellectual inquiry and discourse.
*
That said, you do present an issue concerning the relationship between flirtation and discourse in that heckling suggests that discourse may depart from its connection to seduction and resonance by being also about power relationships. Zizek gets at this in Did Someone Say Totalitarianism when he says:

“So, at this unique point, we pass from language as discourse, as social link, to language as pure instrument.” -Zizek, Slavoj (2014-04-08). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: 5 Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion (The Essential Zizek) (Kindle Locations 1710-1711). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

It seems to me that what the heckler is engaged in is discourse as pure instrument in that it is ultimately about a power relationship: that of debasing the other. And the instrumental function of language can be expressed in other ways such as a boss telling an employee what to do. And this does kind of exclude the role of resonance and seduction which, in turn, puts into question the notion of discourse as flirtation (a point I’m not sure I was trying to make in the first place (in that Jouissance seems like less of a factor. At the same time, you can’t help but feel that heckling is a kind of flirtation in that you can imagine the heckler imagining their selves as having some kind of entourage laughing at every clever thing they say. It’s like some fantasy built around the mythology of Truman Capote.

It’s something I will have to explore, with the help of those that CHOOSE to explore it w/ me, as I go along.

“There is even a more striking cite [?: concept…] of Nietzsche’s concerning…. Pansexuality: "The mode of art and sexuality is always at the top [or back] of his mind.“

I had to take a few liberties with this translation. But if I get you right, you’re basically pointing towards the privilege Nietzsche gives to philosophy as a form of poetic exploration (the Dionysian (as compared to the desire to give philosophy the “sure footing of a science” (the Apollonian: an obsession with the Truth that he was opposed to.

But to offer a couple of alternative takes on this:

To take off from and revise Russell’s description: philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and literature: we can go a long ways in understanding any philosopher by placing them at some point in the midst of that spectrum –that is as long as we don’t oversimplify by fixing them at that point. And Nietzsche clearly works most comfortably at the more literary side of it: as is clearly indicated by his love of the aphorism: that which is the choice of that divided mind that can’t choose between being a philosopher or a poet.

Secondly, as Joe Hughes points out in his reader’s guide to Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, Deleuze’s primary attraction (and a good description of its value (to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard was the fact that they (rather than just describe (showed becoming in action. Now, in order to understand the import of this, we have to go back to Plato who was dealing with the problem of trying to describe a stable truth in a universe that was in a constant state of change: of becoming. Hence the import of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard in that they, after centuries of frustrated attempts to fulfill Plato’s agenda, turned, at last, to embrace becoming.

Of course, there was the reactionary neo-classicist movement of the Anglo-American analytic movement which you refer to several times:

“Sexuality as a “driving force”, a desire (unconscious (is not very present in Wittgenstein, - as a very polite formulation.”

“This is very important, because the British empiricist school with their “tabla rosa” [brain] plasticity makes it totally clear why mankind is so unhappy and brutal and where the “Will to power” stems from.”

Now if I get (and have translated (you right, you’re getting at some of the fundamental issues I have with the Anglo-American analytic movement:

First of all, it is a little sterile given its lean towards the scientific side of the above described spectrum. It’s not that I underestimate the value of what it is doing. It’s just that it’s not for me. In fact, if the only option as concerns philosophy was its methods and agenda, I would have to go back to art or literature. Even though there are some analytic types I wouldn’t mind getting back to (such as Dennett or Searle (if they were all philosophy had to offer (or the dreary mathematics of early Russell (if it weren’t for the continental approach I wouldn’t even be here.

And it is my disposition that lies at the heart of my issue with the analytic when it smugly dismisses any method outside its own. It is one thing to say that a study of what we can say about a world that is perfectly observable can produce some useful results. It is quite another to assert that it is the only method by which we can achieve any valid understanding. In this sense, it is fascistic in nature (to put it in Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guattarri( terms( in that it seeks to cut off the flows of energy that are the primary source of the creativity that can get us beyond ourselves: beyond what our minds can presently do.

(And in this sense, I would respectfully disagree with your negative tone when it comes to “brain plasticity” in that it seems to me that the primary agenda of philosophers like Nietzsche, Deleuze , Rorty, and any other thinker that resides at the more literary side of the spectrum is to facilitate and accelerate that process: to ride it if you will.(

But there is, as you seem to be suggesting, a “Will to Power” aspect in that the dominance of the analytic movement (an academic TREND if you ask me (in that it seems to be the hegemony that comes with the increasing influence of corporate funding in universities: the intellectual coup of an emerging aristocracy/oligarchy via global producer/consumer Capitalism. And this (this abuse of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” ( I would agree, has been a major source of human brutality and misery. I mean think Ayn Rand.

“Against this background, we can see the import of philosopher’s like Deleuze and Rorty (and even Zizek despite his assertion that “the truth is out there” (in that they represent the diametrical opposite of Plato’s assertion that philosophy is a matter of gravitating towards the realm of ideal forms. They, rather, embrace the creative potential of language in the face of a reality that can never be ideal. They establish themselves as an endgame in the ancient dichotomy between making (the side they’re on (and finding.”

I would first of all, apologize for the personal and anecdotal soul searching the following postcard will indulge in (at this point, as I write it, I am as unclear as to what will follow as you are (as I am sure there are the elitist purists among us who consider such a thing below the sanctity of philosophical inquiry. Still, it is something I must express given the various Facebook boards I am straddling and sometimes burden with off topic posts that don’t exactly fit within the subject matter they have chosen to focus on.

As much emphasis as I tend to put on “my process”, that which works in the overlaps of my different readings, I find that process primarily under the influence of 3 primary thinkers (the subjects of my buggering to put it in Deleuzian terms: Deleuze, Zizek, and Rorty. And given the point I am at in that process (my age (and the time I have left: I see the three of them pretty much finishing out that process with all other readings being pretty much absorbed by the center they represent. Of course, I could include Marx –that is given my cynicism towards Capitalism. But I have recently realized that Marx has been almost rendered unnecessary given the vast amount of literature that has been created (both Marxist and non-Marxist (and including my 3 influences (that confronts the failures of Capitalism in more contemporary and relevant ways. I have a great respect for the man. But if I do read him, it will likely be in the sense of secondary text (the di’fferance: the deferred meaning (to my understanding of the 3 that I have found or who have found me.

In Deleuze, I see the very thing I was always looking for as an artist (I started out as a musician, then spread out through poetry, fiction, and art: depth, intensity, and lightness of touch. Hence my tolerance for his propensity towards poetic exposition (free indirect discourse is something quite different (in that there are times when the only thing carrying me through his prose (w/ and w/out Guattarri (is the poetry of it: the feel of it and the images it presents. He pulls me (as if to drown me (into the water of abstraction –yet an abstraction based on pure experience before the linguistic order we impose on it. He, perhaps, more than the other 2, fulfills one of the main reasons I have turned to philosophy in my later years: to recreate the psychedelic experiences (in a less physically demanding way (of my youth in the 70’s.

Zizek, more than anything, appeals to my desire to make philosophy rock and roll. Of course, to the elitist/purists, this would delegate him to the same second rate level of philosophy as say Ayn Rand or any other pop philosopher –that is even though he isn’t really that accessible: especially given his references to Lacan. But he, more than anyone, has expanded my understanding of Jouissance into issues well outside of sex and mental pathologies. Plus that, he (more so than Deleuze (has made it alright to explore philosophical concepts in the context of engagement and popular culture. Like Deleuze, he has engaged in the Promethean heroics of defying elitism: of carrying fire to the people.

Rorty reminds me a little of Karl Jaspers in that he is like a kindly old professor who chooses to put it to you as straight as he can. And while he might seem radical in his alienation of his philosophical peers (he had to abandon the philosophy department and take refuge in humanities (he is perhaps the least radical of my 3. And that is the import of him in that he provides a kind pragmatic antidote to the natural appeal of the radical purely for the sake of the radical. One of the problems with philosophers like Deleuze and Zizek (and continental thinkers in general (is that they are writers of books that they have to sell. And in order to do that, you have to appeal to the novel. This can lead to the temptation to explain things in ways that are way more subtle and complex than they really need to be. At some point, you have to take the pragmatic stance of asking if it works because it resonates with reality, or is it working because it seems complex enough to make you feel like you know something that most people don’t. From a pragmatic perspective: it’s not enough to just ask if something works; you have to ask why it works which goes to the effect of it actually working.

Plus that, at this point in my life, Rorty’s description of himself as an old school Bourgeoisie liberal appeals to me. It’s who I am. I have no problem with it. But, wanting more than being able to save the environment by buying Starbucks coffee (and being honest enough to recognize my distaste for violence and desire for revisionist solutions to the problem of global Capitalism (while being willing to admit, humbly, that I am disposed to “revolution de-caffeinated” , I can, in Rorty’s sense of irony and in a self deprecating way, chuckle at a quote from Deleuze and Guattarri’s What is Philosophy?:

“Dinner and conversation [discourse] at the Rorty’s.”

I am, Humean, learning to do what you tried to teach me:

keep my focus on my process,
and not let the hecklers disturb it.

love ya, man:
you silent god,
watching,
saying nothing,

and keeping everything right where it should be.

“A philosophical system is therefore a plane on which a collection of philosophical concepts can coherently coexist: a plane of consistency, or plane of immanence.”

“Deleuze presents this account in What is Philosophy? by noting that the plane of immanence is “a section of chaos” (WP 42); that which is outside of our conceptual schemata, and which escapes all rational consistency.”

“Talking about Ideas, Deleuze claims that each Idea is like a conic section (DR 187). If we take a three-dimensional cone and cut it along a two-dimensional plane, then depending on the angle of the plane to the cone, we will obtain a different curve. If we take a section that is parallel to the cone, we will have a circle. Cutting the cone at a more skewed angle will give us an ellipse, then a parabola, and finally a hyperbola. Each of these planes is whole, in that it contains a whole curve, but yet it is not complete, as it is only a section of the cone. Likewise, the singular points of each curve (where the curve meets infinity , where the gradient of the curve = 0) differ, but nonetheless all derive from the structure of the cone itself. Different philosophical systems are in the same manner objective presentations of the world that nonetheless are incommensurate with one another, each presenting a another, each presenting a perspective on chaos while leaving open the possibility of other perspectives. There is, for Deleuze, no possibility of a system that would reconcile all of these different planes in a grand Hegelian synthesis.” -(2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 7). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Here we get Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guattarri (relevance to the post-structuralist and post-modern movement. It comes down to a simple and perfectly accessible point:

There is something about reality that always transcends the language we use to describe it.

And if you think about it in terms of the arts, this movement seems almost inevitable. If you go back to Shakespeare and his classical influences, you see the idealization of language and context (his focus on the on the elite (in order to achieve an effect. Of course, at the time, the way people actually spoke was likely nowhere near as ideal as the language of Shakespeare’s plays –which is what probably what made them so appealing. Then Henrik Ibsen came along and took it down from the royal elite and brought it down to the level of the bourgeoisie middle class. And while this seemed like a step forward, it still had the feeling of the idealized as compared to the reality that people were actually experiencing. This is what eventually led to Tennessee Williams and his description of the life of the poor, but that still resorted to an idealized poetic language.

(And put in mind here that in the midst of all this we had Robert Frost who, despite his own neo-classicism, attempted to move poetry from the ideal resonance of Shakespeare’s day to the resonance of the plain spoken(

And we have seen as much in the last couple of generations. Compare, for instance, 2 movies made about D-day: The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. In The Longest Day (aside from a clear lack of the technology of Saving Private Ryan (there was a problem with the dialogue: namely it’s dependency on speechmaking. In other words, the problem with it was not just the technology they had at the time; it was also an issue of a developing sensibility. And you see that problem of sensibility in the stilted dialogue of pretty much every movie before…. well now.

But there is still work to be done. If you look at Saving Private Ryan, you will note a kind of adolescent fascination in Spielberg in that he seemed perfectly comfortable when his actors were in battle or engaged in masculine banter. But the whole thing seemed to stall when it came to the more personal moments: the monologues such as when Giovanni Ribisi was talking about his mother or Matt Damon was talking about his last memory of his brothers.

The point is that our whole cultural history has been a story of how we have dealt with the desire to make the language we use to describe reality a little more like reality itself.

Of course, this is a doomed project. In this sense, we can see why the non-classicist approach emerged such as that of the surrealists, avante garde, and the abstract expressionists in art, and the post-structuralists and post-modernists in theory. The idea was that if language can never truly reflect reality, why not play with it so that it can at least approach it.

And it is in this context that I would argue the import of Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri (at a personal/creative level and Rorty as a social extension (via dialogue (and Zizek in terms of his technique: a kind of intellectual bricolage. The 3 of them, to me, through their materialism, accelerate the evolutionary process of brain plasticity which has been the physical basis of our evolution as a culture.

“Dude, what’s up? I’m not a fascist.
At least I think not. if you’ll grant me some of your time, I think I can humanize y [her?] philosophy.”

First of all, I’m not going to claim to be an expert on Rand. I attempted one book of hers (a collection of essays by her and her supporters (such as Greenspan (back in the 90’s which I abandoned out of laziness and indifference, then attempted The Virtues of Selfishness around 2004, but got so nauseous by about the 4th essay I had to put her down. While I agreed with her assertion that you have to be weary of accusations of “selfishness” in that they are generally resorted to by people who selfishly demand that you do (or focus your point A to point B (on what they selfishly want you to, it just got so smug and obtuse that I couldn’t take it anymore. One of the main problems was the half-assed libertarianism (her supposed anti-libertarianism (that talked a lot about freedom when it came to your role as a producer/consumer (what you can contribute to the Grand Narrative of Capitalism (while dismissing, with an air of distaste, any behavior that acted outside of that role: such as drug use. In other words, there seemed to be no other life choice that could justify a point A to point B outside of that which stayed within the perimeters of the tyranny of the functional and our role as producer/consumers. And this strikes me as a rather shallow and manipulative use of the term “freedom” –much like those of tyrants (such as Adi Amin (who tend to emerge in 3rd world countries.

Of course, the other experience I had with her was the movie version of Atlas Shrugged which I describe in an essay:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=186098

And while I can’t argue that the movie represents her ideas exactly, I can’t help but feel it’s a little more representative than her apologists are willing to admit: mainly because I have felt the influence of her (via the very arguments made in the movie (all over the arguments I hear all the time through other pro-Capitalists. Take, for instance, the notion that government interference in the private sphere must, by its very nature, be authoritarian in nature: the dark tales Capitalists tell their children at bedtime to frighten them away from the idea of any government policy aimed at a just society. Nor can I believe that people who had such a fawning admiration for her ideas as to finally (after an attempt that started in the 70’s (put Atlas Shrugged on film in the mid 2000’s would actually take the liberty of adding such an insidious and fascistic term as “looters”.

Or are you going to argue that none of this was actually in the book?

“Ayn Rand has two faces; her philosophy ad her personality. Her fictional heroes reflect her personality, which isn’t noble but harsh and resentful, But her essays reflect her philosophy, and so do the questions presents in the stories. Not the answers!! Not the dramatic conclusions. These are narrative, not principle.”

This I will have to take your word on. Once again, I cannot claim to be the expert here. That said, I find myself in agreement with the following:

“Who writes really well Aynian perspective fictionally, is James Clavell
SHOGUN is the best book I ever read. I know that’s comical. I never saw the movie or anything, that is all bullshit, it is a fat thick narrative of the most intricate structure with a lead that is beyond whatever you think. Tai Pan is also very good. I learned a lot but truly a lot about Japanese culture from Shogun, which inclues quite a bit of Jesuitism. Amazing stuff. Did you know that the term of gratitude “Arigato” stems from the portuguese “Obrigado”? I did not know that before. The Japanese apparently did not have a world for thanks. Isn’t that a heasdache for a goddamn philologist to conceive; the world is so much beyond even our wildest philosophies. It is remarkable to look at Asian cultures, how far their depths reach into unfathomable valuing. I prefer toe Chinese mindset over the Japansese but I love the Japanese graces. Do you enjoy the Orient? Ar eyou a tea-drinker? lol. No really. I love tea, and I have such high standards that I rarely drink it.“

This seems clear to me given Rand’s well known propensity towards the heroic and mythological as I saw in the movie series of Atlas Shrugged and was stated in the graphic guide Ayn Rand for Beginners: one of my sources I forgot to mention(

But before I go on, I should explain a few things about the latter. I had turned to it as a summary Cliff Notes to Rand as a whole while I was working on my essay. And I was hoping for a balanced perspective on her. What I got was more of a fawning tribute that felt more aimed at converting teenagers than anything. It wasn’t, for my purposes, the best book in the series. But it is still useful to me to the extent that I can assume that the writer, given their positive take on Rand, can give me a reasonably accurate take on her ideas as compared to someone just being critical.

(It would explain such lines in the movie version of Atlas Shrugged such as that of Francisco d’Anconia:

“When money seizes to be the tool of men by which men deal with other men, then men become the tools of other men.”

We can easily see the Shakespearian element at work here (that is along with the way d’Anconia skulked about in the shadows like some modern day Iago. And we can see as much in the heroic stand made by Hank Reardon when in court for violating some outlandish law made by petty bureaucrats that has no real reference to anything we actually experience in reality:

“I do not recognize the good of others as justification of my existence.”

Now I will give you credit for checking me with your first point:

““Ayn Rand has two faces; her philosophy ad her personality. Her fictional heroes reflect her personality, which isn’t noble but harsh and resentful, But her essays reflect her philosophy, and so do the questions presents in the stories. Not the answers!! Not the dramatic conclusions. These are narrative, not principle.”

It was an impressive move that I cannot dispute. Still, we have to deal with the second point:

“Who writes really well Aynian perspective fictionally, is James Clavell
SHOGUN is the best book I ever read. I know that’s comical. I never saw the movie or anything, that is all bullshit, it is a fat thick narrative of the most intricate structure with a lead that is beyond whatever you think. Tai Pan is also very good. I learned a lot but truly a lot about Japanese culture from Shogun, which includes quite a bit of Jesuitism. Amazing stuff. Did you know that the term of gratitude “Arigato” stems from the Portuguese “Obrigado”? I did not know that before. The Japanese apparently did not have a world for thanks. Isn’t that a headache for a goddamn philologist to conceive; the world is so much beyond even our wildest philosophies. It is remarkable to look at Asian cultures, how far their depths reach into unfathomable valuing. I prefer to Chinese mindset over the Japansese but I love the Japanese graces. Do you enjoy the Orient? Are you a tea-drinker? lol. No really. I love tea, and I have such high standards that I rarely drink it. “

We have to recognize the role that fancy is playing in this as compared to an actual engagement with the reality that most people are dealing with. Rand didn’t just prefer the heroic; she felt an outright disdain for literature that described the underdog dealing with realities beyond their control. She, for instance, would have hated Thurber’s short story, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, in which the main character starts out as a weak, hen-pecked man who compensated through fantasy and ended as a weak, hen-pecked man who compensated through fantasy, but would have loved the recent movie version, with Ben Stiller, in which Mitty actually achieves the heroic.

And it is this fanciful element that I am mainly having problems with. And while I would be as seduced by Shogun as you were (actually was since I watched the movie version back in the 70’s (much as I’m still seduced by it given my perfect willingness to watch mindless action/adventure movies (I still have to come back to the reality of things and recognize that there are things that people cannot overcome through shear will. The deeper you look into reality, the more you recognize how written-in to it that actually is. Rand may have a disdain for stories about underdogs dealing with forces beyond their control. But those stories must ring as true (if not more so (as the idealized heroics of the classicist sensibility -and for good reason. As Paul Krugman wrote (and I do not quote this to be mean, but to give my sense of it:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

And once again: you have cleverly checked me on this. Still, I can’t help but follow my ally in Krugman in recognizing the element of fancy and mythology (via Rand and Nietzsche (that is used to justify an unconditional embrace of producer/consumer Capitalism. The truth is that producer/consumer Capitalism (contrary to the notion that it simply requires hard work (requires losers (the underdog working against forces beyond their control (in that success in it is always dependent on doing something that others don’t do. It is also dependent on a willingness to surrender one’s self to the perimeters of the market: to conform as compared to Capitalism’s claim to an exclusive and intimate relationship to Freedom.

(That said: I would also point out the fancy involved in KTS, what I like to call: The Neo-Neitzscheian Gospel of the fearlessly fanciful: the basement overmen who would sit in environmentally controlled spaces, their faces glaring in the dim glow of their computer screens while they type and, in between, raise their fists: tight, trembling, and ready for action. Imagine, Perseus, brother, the fancy it must take to sit in front of a computer and think yourself able to survive the kind of post apocalyptic, Mad Maxian world they seem to long for.

"I don’t agree with Rand’s intellectual vacuity and conceptual simple-mindedness, she basically uses a shallow image of philosophy and thought as a means to political realization and war- but I like that instinct of warfare in her, and she is indeed “on the right track” when it comes to value and the self. On the issue of love she both hits and misses it; yes love is as she says, but it is also what she says it is not, or is more than she is able to credit. In the best light she can be accused of throwing the baby out with the bath water- in reality I think she simply met the limit of her potential for some reason, perhaps consequently of a relationship or personal or money crisis, possibly also due to some hidden shame, and decided to arrest her intellect at a certain position that, in particular given her soviet experiences, was useful and self-validating for her.

She was a warrior and a novelist, and so had little need for understanding “for its own sake”. All in all she is good to read from a certain perspective although her flaws and gaps can be tedious and distracting. Anyway it would have been fun to engage her in conversation, especially if you could get her drinking. I seriously think she lacked anything like what we have here, a true philosophical communion, and also probably became involved with fame and other famous people too soon. From all I’ve seen fame is the fastest route to ruin.

Regardless of her ideas The Fountainhead is a good novel, although the rest of her fiction not so much. Her philosophy is only able to captivate certain youthful minds, though; that doesn’t mean we cannot appreciate the ways in which that thought of hers does cultivate here and there something beyond gross error, of course.

And she was quite a bit more honest and “human” than so many of the “intellectuals” of hers and our own time, despite - perhaps because of - the glaringness, the humanness of her errors."

Actually, this makes some really good points -that is going by the criteria of a balanced perspective. Touche!!! I’m sorry I didn’t catch it earlier in that gives me a better sense of “the other side” by warranting trust. In this case, and the previous one, I’m not getting the feel of being beat over the head with it as I did with the movie version of Atlas Shrugged. That said, I want to make a few final points on the subject of Rand so that, hopefully, I can get back to my focus on Deleuze tomorrow.

Ultimately, my issue with Rand is a practical one. I might even say that it is a pragmatic one in that it goes to Rorty’s truly pragmatic motto:

Take care of Freedom, and the truth will take care of itself.

At some point or other, we have to step out of theory and address real world concerns with real world solutions. And right now, our real world concern is with the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global producer/consumer Capitalism that is eroding our democracies and threatens our existence through the depletion of our natural resources and our possible extinction through man-made climate change. And granted: Rand may partially deal with this through her disdain for monopolies. But this seems based on a nostalgic (a kind of fancy (longing for the Capitalism of Adam Smith: that based on shopkeepers, artisans, craftsmen, and family farms –that which may well have fulfilled the very same needs as Marx’s Communism.

But that is not where we’re at thanks to a growing population and the mass production required to take care of its needs. In that sense, Rand may well be (since she could not have anticipated the emergence of what Robert Reich refers to as SuperCapitalism (in the same boat as Smith and Marx in that all three could not have foreseen future developments and all three were working from bad assumptions about how human nature would play into it: that being that if humans found the happiness they assumed they would, they would fall into place. But then we assumed as much with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in that we thought that cramming democracy down their throats would cause it to spontaneously take off in the Middle East.

So much for grand narratives.

And therein lays my issue with Rand in that she saw (because of the reactionary response to her experiences in Russia (Capitalism as a Grand Narrative and government as the only problem. This makes it a pragmatic issue for me in that the biggest threat to our freedom is the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of producer/consumer Capitalism –whether it was the Capitalism Rand was pimping or not. I believe that the only way to deal with this is through an expansion of the public economy (through public transport, city planning that houses people close to their place of employ, offering necessary goods without a consideration of profit or CEO bonuses (the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that (and in general the government offering of goods and services without the added expense (the added exchange value as compared to the actual buying power created by it (of profit seeking behaviors (that would work alongside the workings of the market.

It just seems to me that true freedom must act outside of our role as producer/consumers. And that must, by definition, include government intervention in the economy. And Rand (whether through her own arguments or those of her advocates (has shown herself to be a major obstacle (via her grand narrative (to that goal.

First of all, some good writing as always. Secondly, Thanks for giving me my around 500 words project for today. And lastly, I am having a really shitty day (much of which I attribute to Capitalism and the money grubbing goons that run it. So if I come off as a little nasty (not knowing what will follow every word I type (I apologize ahead of time. I mainly want to start with this point:

“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing. Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this. “

At this point I would like to deal specifically with your second point:

“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings.”

Now isn’t that the exact same thing that Capitalism does? I mean we need look no further than the natural cheer squad of Capitalism: the economists. What else would they cheer for (even the ones I like: Krugman or Reich (but Capitalism given the dynamic system it is and their need to prove themselves to be engaging in science. In a market economy there are all these complex interactions by a multiplicity of players (who are assumed to be rational (that which, as you put it, gives privilege to the symbol and sign over the well being of the “individual entity” (while in a command economy, the leader sees that people don’t have enough bread and orders that more bread be made –not much for economists to do there. This is why we can easily see more liberal economists going Keynesian (the mixed economy (while recognizing that any argument for a fully command economy would be career suicide. This is because in order for an economist to be justified as a scientist, they must be able to claim to find predictability in an unstable system. And this means that Capitalism must resort to the VERY same abstractions and generalizations that you accuse Marx and Zizek of.

And I’m a little confused by what you mean (by what criteria you are working from (when you refer to them as a little bit crazy. Are you referring to the same criteria by which our healthcare systems determine those who don’t fit into or come near the ideal producer/consumer as mentally unfit?

And what kind of bothers me about this is that you and your ally, as apologists for Rand, are basing your arguments on what I don’t understand about Rand. Fair enough. But then you offer me the very same understanding I have of her framed in a different way. Let me articulate. You started your point with:

“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”

Basically a positive review of Capitalism which you then followed with a negative point:

“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this.”

I could almost hear a nervous and condescending chuckle after –like I’m being played or something. But let me ask you something: how different is this than my original understanding of Rand’s message: that the only system under which we can achieve our higher selves (of self valuing (is Capitalism?

But allow me to turn your prized concept to Marx and recognize the self valuing at the core of his project as well as that of Zizek and social democrats like myself. Allow me to describe Marx, yet again, in a novel and historically accurate way: he was a man who found what he loved to do (his self valuing: what justified his point A to point B (who wanted others to experience what he had and saw Capitalism (the petty and mundane bullshit it can pile on you everyday (as an obstacle to, as you call it: self valuing. And he loved it enough (his self valuing (to sacrifice all normal creature comforts and live in poverty while watching his children die.

Trust me: neither Rand nor Capitalism nor whatever radical solution you’re pimping has a monopoly on self valuing.

Reference: humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop … 1867#p1867