in reading Foucault

What keter is trying to say is that you committed the ultimate ad homo against F in that post.

I know a bunch of gay philosopher dudes that put work in, bro.

First of all, neither of you can take a joke, second of all:

" .and that is why you despise Foucault… because
he did what you fantasize about… does this ring a bell?"

No, no it doesn’t. And the fact that you’d say something like that is exactly why I avoid ever even acknowledging Foucault exists in anything I write, because it’s a contamination to even argue with him about these topics. (My type is more a long the lines of 90-100 pound 20 yearish or so old European females, like the one whose loss I have been drinking and pill popping myself into oblivion on a regular basis quite publicly on this forum.)

And my objecting in the way I did to his rationale for deconstructing consent laws based on an ambiguous reconceptualization of the logos and ‘madness’: that’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s an argument. Here, I’ll repeat it for you: To a flat-brained deconstructionist like him, all laws are the same, all laws equally arbitrary, and prison itself is an immoral, arbitrary injunction with no possible legitimate social function. Hence his objecting to age of consent laws. To him we’re just arbitrarily imposing a standard of “good” or “healthy” that has no possible basis in what we know about the psychology of children and their sensitivities and vulnerability, when beyond the febrile boundaries of our moral blind spot, a pederastic relationship might be a really beautiful human experience, and only another example of the depth of passion being held down by the mental prison of the Logos,- in HIS analysis. Even summarizing his nonsense so I can make my own point against it makes me nauseous, which is why I avoid him. I don’t even want to mention this shit in my own books. I don’t want there to be an association by proxy to it. Fuck this guy.

The stuff above it was the ad hominem attack, and also the joke.

The problem isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s a faggot. Big difference. A lot of gay dudes are hardly faggots, and a lot of faggots aren’t gay. The main problem though is that he philosophically tried to justify deconstructing the idea of sexual consent, specifically in relation to age of consent laws.

First of all, neither of you can take a joke, second of all:

" .and that is why you despise Foucault… because
he did what you fantasize about… does this ring a bell?"

No, no it doesn’t. And the fact that you’d say something like that is exactly why I avoid ever even acknowledging Foucault exists in anything I write, because it’s a contamination to even argue with him about these topics. So thank you for proving my point. (My type is more a long the lines of 90-100 pound 20 yearish or so old European females, like the one whose loss I have been drinking and pill popping myself into oblivion for on a regular basis quite publicly on this forum.) And if you want to know why I am so hostile to this deconstruction of age-of-consent, it’s because a woman I love got taken advantage of as a child and sexually traumatized for the rest of her life, so I feel some personal vendetta against this kind of material. So why don’t you go fuck yourself then?

He did actually write an essay defending the moral potential of pederasty/deconstructing the idea of consent in general. I’m not putting words in his mouth or being disingenuous. I’m not slandering him. So I don’t really see how I’m being immoral/unethical, though even if I was, I wouldn’t care particularly because I’m not in a formal debate at the moment and I can go ahead and take the piss out of whoever the fuck I want to take the piss out of.

I despise him for the same reason I despise deconstructionists in general, (It’s just made more visceral toward him because 1) I hate French philosophy and 2) he’s a pederast) and my objecting in the way I did to his rationale for deconstructing consent laws based on an ambiguous reconceptualization of the logos and ‘madness’: that’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s an argument. Here, I’ll repeat it for you: To a flat-brained deconstructionist like him, all laws are the same, all laws equally arbitrary, and prison itself is an immoral, arbitrary injunction with no possible legitimate social function. Hence his objecting to age of consent laws. To him we’re just arbitrarily imposing a standard of “good” or “healthy” that has no possible basis in what we know about the psychology of children and their sensitivities and vulnerability, when beyond the febrile boundaries of our moral blind spot, a pederastic relationship might be a really beautiful human experience, and only another example of the depth of passion being held down by the mental prison of the Logos,- in HIS analysis. Even summarizing his nonsense so I can make my own point against it makes me nauseous, which is why I avoid him. I don’t even want to mention this shit in my own books. I don’t want there to be an association by proxy to it.

That’s not an ad hominem. I’m saying his basis for deconstructing the notion of consent based on the idea that all boundaries drawn up by the logos against madness, sickness, evil, criminality, etc. are arbitrary, is philosophically untenable and also leads to obvert moral trespasses being excused, like ya know, pederasty.

The stuff above it was the ad hominem attack, and also the joke.

I don’t know why you’re so bent out of shape about it. If this guy’s some kind of intellectual hero for you, perhaps reconsider and get another intellectual hero, because this guy sux. Or don’t have any intellectual heroes in the first place, most of the intelligentsia’s a bunch of fuckin’ degenerates anyway. Poets can have heroes. Even painters can. Musicians. Not philosophers. I’m my only hero.

Ethics? My ethical imperative is to enrich consciousness. That’s it. Not to be nice, not to help people in need. Enrich consciousness. Matter of fact, pain is a great tool in that regard.

If you are serious then you can cite that!

CHomsky made a damn fool of himself. Had nothing to say except his hopeless obsession with human innate langauge, which was utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
MF owned him.

Fucking boys does not mean you are not capable of great thoughts. Most Greek philosophers took a dip in the brown ocean.

Yeah but being French does mean you can’t have great thoughts. And I’ve argued at length against deconstructionism all across the forum, everything I said about it, applies doubly to Foucault.

He wrote of this subject in several texts and even had the balls to give radio interviews on it.

Michel Foucault argued that children are able to give consent to sexual relations, saying that assuming “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.”[2] Foucault, Sartre, and newspapers such as Libération and Le Monde each defended the idea of child-adult sexual relationships.[3]

Onishi, Norimitsu (7 January 2020). “A Victim’s Account Fuels a Reckoning Over Abuse of Children in France”. New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020. But the publication, last Thursday, of an account by one of his victims, Vanessa Springora, has suddenly fueled an intense debate in France over its historically lax attitude toward sex with minors. It has also shone a particularly harsh light on a period during which some of France’s leading literary figures and newspapers — names as big as Foucault, Sartre, Libération and Le Monde — aggressively promoted the practice as a form of human liberation, or at least defended it.

He didn’t just defend it, Foucault: he encouraged and championed it as a form of radical human liberation of pathos from the strictures of the logos. FOR REALSIES. All of these French philosopher fucks at the time were into this shit.

My ad hominems were jokes. I also gave the actual reason why I object to this type of deconstructionist logic in the two other posts I made here.

Parodites: The problem isn’t that he’s gay, it’s that he’s a faggot. Big difference. A lot of gay dudes are hardly faggots, and a lot of faggots aren’t gay. The main problem though is that he philosophically tried to justify deconstructing the idea of sexual consent, specifically in relation to age of consent laws.
First of all, neither of you can take a joke, second of all:

K: ahhh, the you can’t take a joke defense…so if IQ45 says to kill Biden,
and someone does it, his defense is… you can’t take a joke? I was joking…
it is a weak and pathetic defense…I say kill Parodites… and someone does it…
my defense will be, I was joking, can’t Parodites take a joke… I was only kidding… no
harm meant…and of course, I will have no responsibility for my words because, hay,
I was “joking”… words must have accountability… we must be held accountable for our
words, regardless if we were “joking” or not…

K:" .and that is why you despise Foucault… because
he did what you fantasize about… does this ring a bell?"

P: No, no it doesn’t. And the fact that you’d say something like that is exactly why I avoid ever even acknowledging Foucault exists in anything I write, because it’s a contamination to even argue with him about these topics. So thank you for proving my point. (My type is more a long the lines of 90-100 pound 20 yearish or so old European females, like the one whose loss I have been drinking and pill popping myself into oblivion for on a regular basis quite publicly on this forum.) And if you want to know why I am so hostile to this deconstruction of age-of-consent, it’s because a woman I love got taken advantage of as a child and sexually traumatized for the rest of her life, so I feel some personal vendetta against this kind of material. So why don’t you go fuck yourself then?

K: and that person and yourself are still held hostage by the past…everyone has events,
people and yes, even places that have traumatized them… the question becomes,
are you going to continue to be held hostage by the past or, or do you overcome it…
because of a women’s irresponsible behavior/actions, before I was even born, cause
my severe hearing loss… and from which I am going deaf today, should I still harbor
hate or anger toward her? I could be still held hostage by the past and hate her
and no one would deny me that right and yet, I have simply overcome that hate
and anger… how? by understanding the past is the past… events and people who have
harmed me, and trust me, there were many…I haven’t forgiven them as much as my
simply moving on…the past is events, people, places that once were… but are no more…
they can only harm me today if, IF I let them, allow them…the past is gone,
dead and buried…I will not be held hostage by a past that no longer exists
and cannot ever occur today…

P: He did actually write an essay defending the moral potential of pederasty/deconstructing the idea of consent in general. I’m not putting words in his mouth or being disingenuous. I’m not slandering him. So I don’t really see how I’m being immoral/unethical, though even if I was, I wouldn’t care particularly because I’m not in a formal debate at the moment and I can go ahead and take the piss out of whoever the fuck I want to take the piss out of.

K; and why does this bother you so much? an essay written by someone dead almost
40 years ago… he died in 1984…well, if I were a Christian, I could still be offended by
the book Copernicus wrote in in 1543, in which he proved that the sun was the center
of the universe, not the earth and that offends my Christian sensibilities… so
I hate and despise Copernicus… for a book written almost 500 years ago! how long
shall my anger and hate for Copernicus last for? For how long shall I be held hostage by
a book written centuries ago? So for how long shall we allow our trauma from the past
to hold us hostage?

O: [b]I despise him for the same reason I despise deconstructionists in general, (It’s just made more visceral toward him because 1) I hate French philosophy and 2) he’s a pederast) and my objecting in the way I did to his rationale for deconstructing consent laws based on an ambiguous reconceptualization of the logos and ‘madness’: that’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s an argument. Here, I’ll repeat it for you: To a flat-brained deconstructionist like him, all laws are the same, all laws equally arbitrary, and prison itself is an immoral, arbitrary injunction with no possible legitimate social function. Hence his objecting to age of consent laws. To him we’re just arbitrarily imposing a standard of “good” or “healthy” that has no possible basis in what we know about the psychology of children and their sensitivities and vulnerability, when beyond the febrile boundaries of our moral blind spot, a pederastic relationship might be a really beautiful human experience, and only another example of the depth of passion being held down by the mental prison of the Logos,- in HIS analysis. Even summarizing his nonsense so I can make my own point against it makes me nauseous, which is why I avoid him. I don’t even want to mention this shit in my own books. I don’t want there to be an association by proxy to it.

K: as for me, his homosexuality nor his “pederasty” need stop me from studying Foucault…
reading him doesn’t make me complicit or accepting of his personal views…I hold that
the age of consent for sexual matter should be 18 and the any sexual encounter,
any sexual encounter of any age, must be consensual… Am I now acceptable to
for someone to read, because now my views are in compliance with your views?
for according to you, we can only read those philosophers and writers, who views
are morally acceptable to us…what if suddenly a paper is discovered that has
Foucault renouncing pederastry… would he suddenly become acceptable to you?

P:[/b]
That’s not an ad hominem. I’m saying his basis for deconstructing the notion of consent based on the idea that all boundaries drawn up by the logos against madness, sickness, evil, criminality, etc. are arbitrary, is philosophically untenable and also leads to obvert moral trespasses being excused, like ya know, pederasty. The stuff above it was the ad hominem attack, and also the joke.

K: so you hold that there is an ‘‘objective’’ moral code that we must follow
in order to be considered to be an ‘‘ethical’’ person? and is the basis, the source
of this ethical/moral code? this is an straight forward epistemological problem…
what is the source of this knowledge, that there is an ‘‘objective’’ moral code
we must follow and how do we know this knowledge is in fact, ''true?"

P: I don’t know why you’re so bent out of shape about it. If this guy’s some kind of intellectual hero for you, perhaps reconsider and get another intellectual hero, because this guy sux. Or don’t have any intellectual heroes in the first place, most of the intelligentsia’s a bunch of fuckin’ degenerates anyway. Poets can have heroes. Even painters can. Musicians. Not philosophers. I’m my only hero.

K; I am in fact not the who is ‘‘bent out of shape’’…as I am not the being held hostage
by the past… you state that ‘‘most intelligentsia’s a bunch of fucking degenerates anyway’’
and we know this how? Your evidence for this is… your word? you have made
an incredible number of assumptions in this thread… you may want to rethink
or reevaluate your stance towards, intellectual’s, Foucault, French thinkers…
any number of assumptions of yours practically beg of being reviewed…

P: Ethics? My ethical imperative is to enrich consciousness. That’s it. Not to be nice, not to help people in need. Enrich consciousness. Matter of fact, pain is a great tool in that regard.

K: and how does rejecting thinkers like Foucault and intellectuals, based on ethical
considerations lead us to “enrich consciousness?”

In fact, all you have shown us is hate (which you admit to) and how does this mindless
rejection of thinkers based on very shaky ethical concerns, lead us to an
“enrich consciousness”…in fact, your entire thinking is based upon feelings
and emotions/ Romantic beliefs… nothing in your post’s suggest any rational thought
or engagement with reason… it is hatred and anger and disgust… how is that
being rational? no, you have reacted to Foucault on a strictly emotional basis…
how does that lead us to an “enrich consciousness?”

Kropotkin

I wasn’t saying it was a joke as a defense. I was saying it was a joke because it was intended to be funny. I do actually believe everything I said in the joke though. I didn’t want to give you the impression that I wasn’t being serious and was trying to pass it off like I was just saying what I did to be an asshole. No, I do actually believe it. I just have an enjoyment for language and saying things in a funny way.

Why does it bother me so much that a fairly well respected “intellectual” seriously, emphatically defended the moral value of sexual child predation on the grounds that all evil, criminality, and madness was an unjustifiable imposition of the Logos on human ‘nature’, with the entire discourse of the logos (Western morality, which tells us things like fucking children isn’t cool) being, to his mind, intellectually bankrupt… why does that bother me? Is that seriously your question to me? The philosophy in which it is possible to seriously defend having sex with children as not morally evil is a philosophy that can produce all other kinds of garbage, do you not realize that? In fact, it is a philosophy that can produce NOTHING BUT garbage.

YA KNOW WHAT, I DON’T KNOW. Why does that bother me? Because it’s the founding motive for the entire Leftist mass-psychosis we’re now living through? Because it’s an intellectual rape of our entire culture inheritance from Greece and the concept of morality itself? Because it’s a defense of fucking kids?

It doesn’t bother you?

Just say it, explicitly then. I don’t need to articulate why that might bother me, besides I already did.

Unfortunately, telling rape victims to ‘get over it’ like you just did, with regard to the woman I mentioned, is not a solution I can find much in. I’d prefer defending the discourse of the Logos those like Foucault tried and continue to try their hardest to decompose. It’s decay is of great consequence.

" K: and how does rejecting thinkers like Foucault and intellectuals, based on ethical
considerations lead us to “enrich consciousness?”"

Well rejecting thinkers like Foucault is only the first step, the second is accepting thinkers like me. I wrote 12 books ya know, didn’t use the word faggot in a single one of them.

"Romantic beliefs… nothing in your post’s suggest any rational thought
or engagement with reason… it is hatred and anger and disgust… how is that
being rational? no, you have reacted to Foucault on a strictly emotional basis…
how does that lead us to an “enrich consciousness?”

No. Just stop right there. I gave you a perfectly rational rationale. His entire basis is deconstructing the conceptual distinction of reason and madness (through the use of a tool called the materialist dialectic of history, which Marx first developed by inverting the Hegelian propaedeutic: I go over that in the three self-excerpts at the end of this post; suffice to say that all Leftists, in one way or another, use this same inverted dialectic to level the field of discourse and make actual dialogue impossible, just as critical race theorists use it to transform the idea of racism into something so nebulous it can be applied to everyone and everything) to the point that neither mean anything anymore and have become entirely ambiguous, and then he formulates the argument that every possible law or moral evaluation amounts to an unjustifiable imposition of logos and reason on human nature. He rejects the idea that there can be any real social function in a law like don’t fuck kids because of how he’s framed this polarity between what he calls madness and reason, and it’s a polarity that no longer makes any sense. It’s like how modern Leftists define racism in such a nebulous way that it allows them to call everyone racist for whatever reason they want, that is what deconstructionism, is. It’s not my problem if you can’t fucking get it, but don’t tell me I didn’t, immediately after leaving my jokes, provide an objective statement about it. This shit is pissing me off, fuck off. Of course, if you accept Foucault’s deconstruction of ‘reason’ as a concept, you can just tell me that anything I possibly say is an irrational imposition of logos on discourse, reducing all dialogue to a mindless game of power.

^ Foucault inherited this from Marx, who did it first. His concept of the species-essence was a deconstruction of the modes of capitalist relation which allowed him to formulate a specious argument in which all division of labor, like that exampled by industrial society, was an arbitrary and therefor unjustifiable imposition of power. I elaborate this at great length in my own books. So here ya’ go dipshit, you want to deal with something lacking in jokes and my more conversational antipathy:

" Marx believed that all men, including all races and genders, contain within themselves a shared, common species-essence. In other words,
human nature is already formed and perfected, but it is forced to express itself in a limited form, with these limited forms tied to specific periods
in our history. This limitation takes the ultimate form of what we understand to be subjugation, slavery,- that is, the inequality that manifests
itself, by purely causal derivation, within the social relations,- within man’s relationship to man. All individuality is thus simply the unconscious
delusion whereby man proclaims his limitation as his individuality,- something Marx calls ‘false-consciousness’. For, if we all share a common
essence that cannot fully express itself materially, then all individuality is a delusion and simply one man proclaiming his limitation as his true
self because he happens to be, presumably, on a privileged side of the social relations at that point in history. The limitation, more precisely, owes
itself to the unstable dialectic of material history,- a dialectic between the modes of production and the social relations of production. Where
Hegel believed the dialectical instability was inherent in Being itself, so that Temporality extracts the latent imperfection of Being as Non-Being,
(thesis-antithesis) and then converts the absence/negative (What Hegel calls negation-of-the-negation) of that Non-being into a presence or a
metaphysical positivity called Becoming, (the synthesis) with the whole process repeating ad infinitum by extracting the new imperfection within
Becoming, etc. etc. leading toward a Totalization of Absolute Spirit, Marx inverts this to say that history, through stabilizing the social relations
and modes, is leading to an ultimate state of equality and freedom- a state of existence in which the species-essence, contained perfectly in all
men, is finally able to express itself without limitation, such that no inequalities (social hierarchies) will appear between men anymore, since all
men will be expressing the exact same essence by the exact same modality. I of course “believe” that individuality is not merely man’s false
affirmation of his distorted limitation as a true self,- of the limited expression of the species-essence within him as his authentic consciousness;
instead, I believe in a genuine creative force by which novel individualities are developed, through processes I defined like mimesis and the
exchange-functions. At any rate, this idea of all individuality being a lie,- of all identity/individuality being simply a limitation of the common
species-essence, which induces those in a favorable position, like slave-masters, to proclaim that limitation as their authentic self, such that all
social hierarchies must be rebuked as similarly grounded in mere distortions of the species-essence,-- at any rate, this is where all forms of
Leftism come from. Leftism is a deconstructive effort to erode these forms of individuality and hierarchy because Leftists believe,- even if they
are not aware themselves of the deep-theory behind it, that is, even if they never read Marx and Hegel,- (indeed 99 out of 100 self-affirming
Leftists not only didn’t read them, they can’t read them) that all forms of individuality are delusional, that individuality itself is a lie and finally,
by obvious implication, that all social hierarchies formalizing differences between individuals must be evil, that is, subjugating and tyrannical.
From National Socialism to Democratic Socialism: this is what Leftism actually “is”. In all its myriad forms, this is the commonality; if you
believe this, no matter what else you add on top of it, you’re a Leftist. This is why it seems like everything is an expression of racism, bigotry,
homophobia, etc. to them: because everything precisely is that, insofar as everything is precisely an expression of the limitation of the human
species-essence induced by dialectical instabilities between the social relations of production and the instrumental modes of production. Because
all individuality is delusional and exists as merely an expression of species-essence in its limitation, concepts like individual rights pre-existing
government, 1 meritocracy, private property, or free-speech, etc.- all that amounts to institutional structures meant to reinforce a hierarchy
favoring white people at the level of the social relations of production, because white people happened to be in power at the time the Declaration
and Constitution were conceived and written, as well as during the proper emergence of the capitalist system, which dominates the
world-economy up to this point."

[i]" … In Marx-Engels, we have the concept of the ‘Social Relations of Production’, which we might read as a more limited conception than that of the
‘normativized individualities’ discussed here, along with their ‘evaluative constraints’, as derived out of the process of mimesis. Similarly, finding
a more limited conception of these restraints, we have a corresponding notion in the ‘Modes of Production’ as defined by the ‘Social Relations of
Production’, whereby surplus-capital is instrumentally distributed in accordance to what Marx calls ‘the law of historical progression’, given the
fact that social relations and the modes of production introduce their own dialectical instability and therefor a materialist force driving a
stabilizing process (the dialectical-materialist reading of History) toward some future. Thus, in Marx, different ‘stages’ of history are simply
different organizations of the distributed surplus-wealth,- organizations of capital formed in accordance with the modes of production which
existed at the time, entirely divorced from any sempiternal metaphysical foundation sub species aeternitatis and determined solely by the ‘social
relations’ under-girding their instrumental realization as human techne- modes that, in turn, modulated man’s expression of his own
species-essence, thereby defining- through limitation, these very social relations. The stabilization of this dialectic, in Marx’s greater system,
drives history toward,- where Hegel would say the Absolute Spirit,- what Marx would call ‘freedom’,- that is, a state of being in which the
dialectic has been perfectly stabilized and man is emancipated from all the tyranny of man, such that the State ceases to exist as we know it,
along with its economic foundations, whereby a new harmony is achieved and the perfection of the species-essence is brought into total
conformation with the social relations, and the social relations in turn with it. Because Marx believes that the species-essence is contained and
perfected, if latently, in all men, the formation of subjectivies through somato-mimetic transfer between individuals (and later, the
exchange-functions) is not accounted for, and, in its place, we have the total brunt of the argument placed upon the limited forms through which
man, as essentially already perfected or ‘formed’, is able to express this perfection,- (a perfection roughly corresponding, if in an inverted form,
to Hegel’s totality) namely in his relationship with other men; a relationship expressed, from out of a state of nature, in an accordingly marred
and utterly limited form,- a form stained by thousands of years of pre-historical subjugation and tyranny concluded in the production of capital,
and tendentially disposed toward greater freedom, progress, equality, etc. insofar as ‘the law of history’ is obeyed,- which we have of course no
option but to do, given the fact that this law is proclaimed a material science by Marx, and a certainty as well-established as any other science.
In so many words, ‘individuality’, ‘identity’, ‘subjectivity’ and so on, constitute merely a limitation of a common essence latently perfected in all
men, for which the social relations and the modes of production pose a dialectical instability visible in our history, in the false-consciousness by
whose unconscious imposition man is led to proclaim this limitation as his delusional ‘individuality’, (to proclaim his slavery as his freedom) and
the oppressive hierarchies by which this ‘essence’ is prevented from completely expressing itself without distortion."

" … Without a way to selectively produce from the available cultural materials a distinct form or ethos, (neglecting of course those
selective mechanisms operated by artificial intelligence, which of course only more thoroughly neutralize the dialogue between the individual and
group) no tribes can emerge around the codification of such distinct forms in the gestural language typifying a group-identity, so that the
population flattens out into a heterogeneous assemblage,- that is, a kind of entropic maxima beyond whose ontological black-hole we are not
prepared to venture any tentative speculation,- a leveling of the individual echoing what Marx had called the ‘species-essence’, that being a
dialectical totalization of human nature with its own underlying material forces, given his premise that every man possesses intrinsically the
entire nature of humanity, and that all men are therefor equally capable of playing the fisherman, of being a poet, a scientist, a composer, a
farmer, etc. so that the specialization of labor induced by capitalism (the secondary-process, as we would prefer to call it) causes an alienation
from that internal totality,- from the species essence,- with Marx further elaborating that this sense of alienation is what, under the delusion of
capitalism, we call our “individuality”, which he reads as a mere symptom of a certain pathological delusion, or again using his own language, a
‘false-consciousness’. The apparent contradiction in the bulk of critical theory, with the individual deconstructively excised from the
primary-process and the subject thus solely elevated to the status of Truth, alongside the conclusion that the individual is programmatically
derived by the secondary through a kind of specialization tacitly grounded in the very marginalization, class-structure, gender disparity, socially
constructed roles, and racism that critical-theory finds its highest task in freeing us from, is not merely an apparent contradiction- it is in fact quite
integral to the world-view in question,- that is, a hard leftism which best serves those who have co-opted and transformed it into a mere
ideological vessel for the secreted transmission of certain economic and political goals, like the mass exportation of labor to foreign nations
passed off as a moral victory and couched upon the ideal of a freer and more inclusive world, or less emphatically said, on open boarders and the
kind of pan-hemispheric markets so beneficial to those states currently enjoying the later stages of tertiary-capitalism, or more properly,- to those
corporations in control of such states. In so many words, this subversion of mimesis is ultimately responsible for the dissolution of the political
into the subpolitical, of morality into bioethics, as well as for the fragmentation of the human subject into unthinking individualism, hedonic
excess, materiality, consumerism, tribalist identity-politics, etc. Liberal-secular humanism, as Dugin explains, designates simply this sub-political
reality of modern politics, insofar as the basic interests of liberal humanism,- or more generally, the most conspicuous subject matter of our
political discourse on both the Left and the Right,- consists in things like the legislation of marijuana, the legality of gay marriage, etc. none of
which are even political subjects in the true sense, but simply the matter of bottom up, state-level legislatures already established theoretically by
the federalists a few hundred years ago and of course injuncted upon or ignored by federal over-reach and those executive agencies spirited along
by corporatocratic neocons and neolibs in the pursuit of their globalist program."[/i]

As Marx’s use of this materialist dialectic deconstructed and rendered illegible all legitimate social hierarchy and division of labor, so Foucault’s renders unreadable all legitimate distinction between immoral and moral acts, even on obvious issues like child predation being evil, just as the feminist use of the materialist dialectic between male-female relations reduces all gender discourse to an omnipresent patriarchy within which it is not possible to say anything at all without being branded a defender of the patriarchy. Do you not see what this “philosophy” has done? It has turned all discourse into a game of power and made philosophy impossible, made moral values impossible to delimit, even on issues we all instinctively know are wrong.

So as Marx applied this inverted dialectic to master-slave distinction, so Foucault to madness-reason, so critical gender theorists to man-woman, etc.-- all to the same end; to the end of making the discourse of the Logos unreadable, thereby reducing all dialogue to a game of power and making it impossible to defend any laws or moral values as anything more than arbitrary impositions of power, even moral values as obvious as ‘sex with kids is wrong’.

^ You wanted some rational arguments instead of jokes, there ya’ go. Deal with that homie. I’ve got about 14,000 pages of it now if you can manage the three paragraphs.

I don’t have any more time than this, to explain to you and everyone else why… It pisses me off when people defend child abuse as morally OK. Fuck this.

and I return to Foucault…

Part of the modern world, inherited from the church and a thousand years
of moral judgments…poverty and those within poverty are judged, but
they are judged on ethical grounds… think of the Protestant belief in
hard work as the path to heaven…and one of the vices given in the
bible as the Christian seven vices is sloth which can be defined as :

sloth; is a habitual disinclination to exertion or laziness

and this is truly believed by Protestants and in modern day
America…we define work and those who do and those who
don’t in ethical terms…those on welfare or WIC programs are
judged ethical/morally…we see poverty as an ethical problem,
not as an systemic economic problem…which means we cannot solve
ethical problems such as poverty and sloth with social and economic
solutions because those who fall into poverty have moral issues, not
economic issues… and we base our political programs on that “fact”…

which is why right wing politicians are always demanding that those on social
programs such as welfare or WIC programs, are drug tested and closely
observed to see that they fulfill their moral obligations, going to church
and other moral answers to poverty… that the right wing love to propose…

and this explains why we have failed to solve poverty issues because
they are seen as morality/ethical problems, not as economic or political problems…

the key to solving any problem is to work out the questions first and we haven’t done
so… why is there poverty? and the right wing holds that this is an ethical/moral
problem…and thus we fail… because we have failed to understand the problem…

poverty is the result of several actions and inactions…
one of those inactions is in the case of education… we must
equally educate everyone… not just those who can afford it or
happen to live in an area with good education… but that means something
else is going on… we refuse to increase the federal minimum wage… which
keeps people in poverty… we see and act on poverty in ethical terms
and not in terms of “what can be done”…so education is one step,
the increasing the minimum wage is another step, no longer treating minorities
as criminals with the crime of being black or being brown…prison reform will go a long
way toward removing people off of poverty…

the war on minorities that this country has engaged with since the Raygun era,
must end… we cannot treat those who look different or pray differently or
are encased into institutional poverty as criminals… as we do today…

we don’t actually believe or work on the basic and fundamental line
in the declaration of independence…

“that all men are create equal”

I wish I could say we offer up at least lip service to that line, but frankly
we don’t even do that…we don’t even pretend to treat people as equals…
we work, in institutional ways, to keep minorities, women, people of color,
to remain in poverty and despair

it is us, America as a whole that has refused to be moral or ethical…
we have failed in being moral/ethical human beings… if we fail to
hold up our end of the promise of the declaration, to treat all people,

“that all men/people are created equal”…

and I mean that in a legal, systematic way… we must treat everyone equal
or no one is treated equal…

Kropotkin

Complain I didn’t give a rational argument against Foucault, and then ignore my rational argument against Foucault. Is it because you’re intellectually dishonest, or because you really just can’t understand anything I just said? Even the bold bits? I highlighted them to indicate I was trying to be as simple as possible.

There is no war on minorities. Now that I see the verbiage you use, I can see you might actually be incapable of understanding anything I just said. Materialist. Dialectic. Of. History. I explained to you what this tool is and how it is used as a weapon to produce concepts like ‘patriarchy’, ‘systemic racism’, etc.

You wanted an unemotional argument, I gave you one.
[size=85]

No. Just stop right there. I gave you a perfectly rational rationale. His entire basis is deconstructing the conceptual distinction of reason and madness (through the use of a tool called the materialist dialectic of history, which Marx first developed by inverting the Hegelian propaedeutic: I go over that in the three self-excerpts at the end of this post; suffice to say that all Leftists, in one way or another, use this same inverted dialectic to level the field of discourse and make actual dialogue impossible, just as critical race theorists use it to transform the idea of racism into something so nebulous it can be applied to everyone and everything) to the point that neither mean anything anymore and have become entirely ambiguous, and then he formulates the argument that every possible law or moral evaluation amounts to an unjustifiable imposition of logos and reason on human nature. He rejects the idea that there can be any real social function in a law like don’t fuck kids because of how he’s framed this polarity between what he calls madness and reason, and it’s a polarity that no longer makes any sense. It’s like how modern Leftists define racism in such a nebulous way that it allows them to call everyone racist for whatever reason they want, that is what deconstructionism, is. It’s not my problem if you can’t fucking get it, but don’t tell me I didn’t, immediately after leaving my jokes, provide an objective statement about it. This shit is pissing me off, fuck off. Of course, if you accept Foucault’s deconstruction of ‘reason’ as a concept, you can just tell me that anything I possibly say is an irrational imposition of logos on discourse, reducing all dialogue to a mindless game of power.

^ Foucault inherited this from Marx, who did it first. His concept of the species-essence was a deconstruction of the modes of capitalist relation which allowed him to formulate a specious argument in which all division of labor, like that exampled by industrial society, was an arbitrary and therefor unjustifiable imposition of power. I elaborate this at great length in my own books.

As Marx’s use of this materialist dialectic deconstructed and rendered illegible all legitimate social hierarchy and division of labor, so Foucault’s renders unreadable all legitimate distinction between immoral and moral acts, even on obvious issues like child predation being evil, just as the feminist use of the materialist dialectic between male-female relations reduces all gender discourse to an omnipresent patriarchy within which it is not possible to say anything at all without being branded a defender of the patriarchy. Do you not see what this “philosophy” has done? It has turned all discourse into a game of power and made philosophy impossible, made moral values impossible to delimit, even on issues we all instinctively know are wrong.

So as Marx applied this inverted dialectic to master-slave distinction,* so Foucault to madness-reason, so critical gender theorists to man-woman, etc.-- all to the same end; to the end of making the discourse of the Logos unreadable, thereby reducing all dialogue to a game of power and making it impossible to defend any laws or moral values as anything more than arbitrary impositions of power, even moral values as obvious as ‘sex with kids is wrong’.

  • The ‘class struggle’[/size]

There’s no emotion or ad hominem in any of that.

K: and that is fucking fantastic that there is no emotion or Ad hominem in your argument…

the problem is that Foucault really doesn’t engage with Marx… he is much
more engaged with Nietzsche or Sartre…for example Foucault idea about
power is derived more from Nietzsche then it is from Marx… now, with that said,
virtually every single French thinker in the 20th century had to come to some
conclusion about Marx…and thus he did join the French communist party, I
can’t remember the year off of my head, but anyway, he was a member for only
a year or two…Marx didn’t really do anything for Foucault and it wasn’t a
major influence on his thinking as it was for other French thinkers…Sartre for
example…recall the statement that I wrote out…

" I belong to that generation who, as students, had before their eyes, and
were limited by, a horizon consisting of Marxism, phenomenology and
existentialism. For me the break was first Beckett’s ''Waiting for Godot",
that was a breathtaking performance." Foucault in 1983

notice he doesn’t say he was a Marxist, but that was one of the few possibilities
available to him as a student…and he wasn’t a Marxist.

Kropotkin

“the problem is that Foucault really doesn’t engage with Marx… he is much
more engaged with Nietzsche or Sartre…for example Foucault idea about
power is derived more from Nietzsche then it is from Marx”

“his idea of power is derived more from …” No it isn’t. Not that it would matter because Nietzsche’s genealogy of the master-slave struggle is a proto-Marxist manifestation of what became the materialist dialectic of history in the struggle between the genders, the classes, between reason and madness, between the races, black and white, gay and straight, go down the list and plug in whatever bullshit you want into it, it’s still the materialist dialectic of history. And it’s irrelevant if he did not explicitly engage with Marx. None of these critical race theorists explicitly invoke him and his terms but nonetheless, even if they are not aware of where their ‘ideas’ come from, their deep-theory or their wider implications, it is Marxism in a twisted form speaking through them like a ventriloquist and his puppet. Most promulgators of this mind-virus are puppets anyway, by definition. It doesn’t matter if he explicitly engages with Marx, he is doing the exact same mental juggling act Marx and every other subscriber to material dialectics did and does, here, I’ll show you:

[i]Foucault’s analysis of the dialectic of reason and madness amounts to: there’s an instability in the flow of history between these two concepts, because the perfect human nature embodied in all men is limited to material forms based on what time we are born into and the social relations defining it. Those relations privilege one group over another; the privileged group calls their privilege ‘reason’ and deems anything threatening to it to be ‘madness’ so that it can then impose its will upon and restrain that madness, constituting for Foucault an arbitrary imposition of the discourse of Logos on human nature itself. All moral constraint is a manifestation of this materialist-dialectical force, and must be rejected, even something as basic as: children don’t have the fuckin brain capacity to give consent.

Marx’s analysis of the dialectic of the class struggle amounts to: there’s an instability in the material distribution of the productive modes, which expresses itself as the social relations of production. While human nature is perfected within all men as species-essence, (Marx believed all men could simultaneously be poet, scientist, philosopher, mathematician, warrior, hunter, doctor, etc. and the only reason 90 percent of humanity really only does one thing, and poorly, isn’t because of something like they have non-genius IQs, but just this class struggle ‘alienating’ them from their own species-essence.) it is forced to assume distorted limited forms based on the social relations its born into and the emergent ‘division of labor’ in industrialist society. These relations privileges one class which then champion their own distortion and limitation as virtue, hypostasize it as an ideal to strive for, and then immobilize the workers into accepting their own ill fate as a consequence of their own economic failures they could improve if they just worked harder,- a condition of Marx calls the ‘false-consciousness’ that keeps the masses from realizing their own emancipatory potential.

Feminists’ analysis of the male-female dialectic as a gender war amounts to: there’s a sexually undifferentiated ‘liberal human nature’ that gets born into relational schemes formed between the genders throughout history, which in most cases are patriarchal relations constituting subjugation, such that all gender roles or hierarchical organizations of those roles amounts to, as it does in the other two examples, arbitrary impositions of power upon the under-privileged side of the ‘social relations of production.’

Critical race theorists’ analysis of the white-minorities dialectic or race-struggle amounts to … Yeah do I need to go on, or do you see the pattern? [/i]

This is not reason, it’s not philosophy: it is sophism, and those using it are the modern day equivalent of what Socrates called sophists. This device, the material dialectic, is a weapon used to fragmentate society into cross-competing trialist camps all at war with each other. Its proliferation as a mind-virus is encouraged by political-corporate elite to render the masses more amenable to otherwise untenable programmes whose goals are wholly at odds with their own interests as a populace: the varied forms of this dialectic are used to render the malignant goals of the political-corporate elite too ambiguous to be understood by most people, and so the globalist machine keeps marching forward unchecked. Incapable of generating new ideas on its own, the only thing this materialist-dialectic can do is level the field of discourse and reduce all other ideas to material games of power, arbitrary impositions of the privileged on the under-privileged, etc. And that is the crucial point. It cannot create new intellectual content, it can only level, reduce, and destroy the intellectual content whose analysis it is submit to, and if unchecked, will in fact simply corrode the entire Western discourse and reduce our most important institution, academia, to a completely brainwashed mind-melding factory that pumps out politically identical ideologues instead of free thinkers… oh wait, that already happened.

So when you asked me why I get so heated, well I don’t so much hate this stuff as I am disgusted by it. I don’t ‘hate’ dog shit, because hate makes us level with the object of our hate. No, I am just disgusted by it and would rather not step in it. So too, with me toward Foucault: also, his deconstruction of consent law and his actual encouragement of child predation especially irks me, being very close to someone who had that happen to them in the past and still lives with the scars. And as to deconstructionists in general, well I am viscerally opposed toward them for all the reasons I just laid out here, mainly because it’s literally ensuring the extinction of the very idea of freedom of thought and individualism, and guaranteeing the total dystopian future and ‘End of History’.

In reading Foucault, I came to this point…

People talk/write about the transcendental viewpoint… this word, transcendental
means universal…as in a transcendental morality, a universal morality that covers
all human beings…but we are in fact, limited human beings… we are limited
by our nature… our faculties: our senses which are limited… our sight, hearing,
touch, smell, and taste… we need machines to explore that which lies outside of
our senses… thus we have microscopes and telescopes and stethoscopes and
glasses and hearing aids… we need these devices to aid us
in increasing our very limited range of our senses…

we are limited in our ability to gain knowledge… we are not born with all the
knowledge of the universe or even the knowledge needed to survive,
as animals are born with the knowledge needed to survive in instincts…
our instincts are very limited… (there is that word again)

I can only run so fast and I can only jump so high and I can only read so fast,
my abilities are limited… everything about a human being is limited…
at no point can we achieve anything resembling a transcendental/universal
action…

and yet, somehow, given these incredible limitations, we can reach a
universal/transcendental morality… or a universal/transcendental knowledge
of any kind… we are far too limited to achieve any kind of transcendental
knowledge…(now some may say, that is the point of god… to give us
transcendental/universal knowledge of morality/ethics… the problem there
is this… if we are so limited in nature as to not be able to achieve any
kind of transcendental/universal knowledge, how are we able to then understand
god and his transcendental/universal knowledge? I don’t see how a limited
viewpoint can understand a universal viewpoint)…there is no way to connect
our limited viewpoint with any type of universal/transcendental viewpoint…
how would we make that connection give our limited nature?

if we are limited in ability and understanding, then we are limited in
our understanding and knowledge…

no such thing as our having any type/sort of transcendental knowledge…
we simply can’t go from point A to point B.

and our limitation are not just in understanding a universal/transcendental
viewpoint, but we have limitations in language, science, philosophy,
history, ethics, economics, political science… so on…

our very language limits us… do we have a universal/transcendental
language, science, philosophy, history, political science?

do we have transcendental ism’s, religions, prejudices, biases, superstitions?

not in the least…we are not united in our viewpoints but separated in our viewpoints
because we are limited in our understanding of the universe/world…

the world looks fracture and separated because of our limitations in
understanding, our limitations in our senses, our limitations in
how much we can grasp of the world, let me make this clear…
as my hearing loss is based on the higher decibels, which means I cannot
hear, without my hearing aid, higher pitches things like flutes, violin’s, certain phones,
women’s voices, whistles… when not wearing my hearing aid, I have been known
to stand next to a ringing phone and not hear it…I am limited to hearing the
lower pitches in sound range… and that is similar to our limitations we have
as human beings…limitations in understanding and how much we can grasp
of the world…and so, this vast human limitation is why the world looks
so fractured…no matter how hard we try, we are unable to connect the dots
of who we are and what it means to be human…what does it mean to be human?

what is the work around for our immense limitations, in knowledge, intelligence,
senses, understanding? I think there is but one work around, that is of
instead of one, we become two…in other words, we work with others to
fill in our gap, our limitations… whereas I can’t hear, another can hear for me,
and whereas they might not be able to read, I can read for them…

the answer to our limitations lies in human cooperation and working together
to overcome our limitations… I can’t run a 5 minute mile, anymore, but
someone out there can, but maybe they can’t understand Nietzsche, but I can…
we fill in each other limitations… and by adding a third person, we can fill in even more
limitations we have in knowledge, intelligence, understanding, senses, talents…
I cannot sing, but others can sing…thus we find ourselves working within a choir,
and this choir is not just about singing but about filling in our limitations…
I work out problems in philosophy and others use their skills/senses to work
out math and between the two of us, we can increase our understanding, knowledge,
that we cannot do as individuals…

our limitations don’t need to divide us as much as unite us…

Kropotkin

ok, let me try the above post in a different way…

how are we to understand epistemology given our limitations?

how can we “know” something given our limitations in understanding
and in our facilities? If I can’t hear, then how do I tell the differences
between spoken languages? can I tell the difference between Greek
and German given I can’t hear either one? it would all be, at best,
guesswork…and only possible if, if I engage in a learning how to
read both of them…by reading, I might, might be able to sort out
the difference in speaking between Greek and German…maybe?

given our limitations, intellectually, in senses, in understanding,
in facilities, how are we suppose to grasp such ideas in say, philosophy
like Metaphysics? or even in epistemology… how are we suppose to know
what we can’t know because of our limitations? and what about Aesthetics?
or Ethic/morality? our limitations seem to limit us to a very small area of
understanding in such philosophical matters…little else in such matters in
an engagement with the divine? how do work that out given our limitations?

many hold a certainty, in having certain knowledge that isn’t warranted
by these painfully obvious limitations we have…

much of what we do as human beings in overcoming our limitations,
is to make assumptions…we simply assume a god exists that tells
us things that we cannot know because of our limitations…we escape
holding ‘‘certain’’ knowledge of such things as in Ethics/morality…
by assuming that god holds them for us…and we only need to follow god
to escape our limitations, in epistemology for example…how do we ‘‘know’’
what we know epistemological, without being able to be certain due to our
limitations?

given our vast limitations in our senses and understanding and knowledge,
to name a few of our limitations, how do we ‘‘know what we know?’’

how am to make sense of the universe and my place in the
universe/world given my own limitations?

questions without any real answers…

Kropotkin

so let us try this… can we, given our limitations, understand such questions
as, “What is the meaning of life?”

that question, the meaning of life, cannot be understood as an epistemological question,
because we lack the tools/knowledge necessary to to work out what is the “meaning of life”
so we can rephrase this question as an aesthetic problem or an ethics/moral problem…

is the meaning of life to work out a “beautiful” life… an aesthetically pleasing life?
or an life that is a beauty to behold??? seeing how life does seem to be full of
the “evils” of existence, where even being born is considered to be evil, not
to mention the suffering of disease, old age, death… the evils of existence
that the Buddha pointed out and tried to end by getting everyone to negate
existence by not being born again… to return to the void that we all came from
in which case, we are no longer being born again… I for one, believe that
the "suffering’’ that we go through is part of the ticket to existence that we must pay…
the pain and suffering of being born, of growing old, of disease and of death is
the price of admission to existence…think of existence without those “sufferings” …
life would become boring, not worth living, in fact, one could make a pretty good
argument that the reason life is worth living is because of this “suffering”…
life is given depth and complexity and a point because of this “suffering”
life becomes “dear” when it is faced with the sufferings of existence…

how might one create a life worth living through? we create that by
the suffering we face in that life…my life is infinitely much harder
with my hearing loss, but it also makes my life have more value because
it could have been so much worse, then what I did end up with…
my hearing loss has given my life a complexity that makes it something
special… my hearing loss has given my life a depth and struggle that
has forced me to engage with it in much more detail then had I been born
“Normal”…I cannot take my life for granted because I have fought and worked
and suffered through my hearing loss… every day, every single day of my life
is a struggle to hear… and that means I cannot take this life for granted, something
I might have done if not for my everyday struggles to hear…
it might be said, that my hearing loss has given my life its meaning and value…
perhaps…my life has not been an aesthetic problem because of the struggle
of existence I face every day with my hearing loss…

so I ask now, is the meaning of existence an ethical/moral question?
but again, we run into an epistemological question… how do I know
what the “right” thing to do that will make my life an ethical/or moral
life? how am I to know what is the “right” or “Moral” thing to do?
by what standards are we to explore the question of a moral/ethical life?
and standards imply that this question is an epistemological question,
and not a random question of existence…

so what knowledge will I use to ensure my existence is an ethical/moral one?

I cannot know… and thus, I am without recourse, at least for now, to
an epistemology answer…

Kropotkin

a rare day off…and so we begin…

In thinking about Foucault, we see the text, the book, the lectures, in which
he explores his topics, power, sexuality, knowledge, among other topics…

but we are not just our text, our words, our language, we are also, who we
are, by our lives… in other words, we can “read” a life by the actions and the
type of life one has lived…we can see that Foucault wasn’t particularly
political until 1968…but recall that French intellectuals are, with few
exceptions, engaged in politics…that has been the pattern during the
entire modern era…after the French Revolution…the engagement with
the political by the French intellectual…something we don’t have in
the U.S…and that is something of a loss for us… for we could use
some intellectual engagement with the political…

anyway, how are we going to “read” Foucault’s life?

let us think about the “average” person’s life… it has been said,
that “most people live lives of quiet desperation”

and it is true… we are not ‘‘living’’ human lives… we are not engaged
in any type of exploration of what it means to be human…
how can we, when we spend our days working ourselves to the bone…
we engage in propping up capitalism, making profits, "seeking’’ a living, in
other words, we are engaged in Animal behavior, seeking the means of
continuing existence… nothing more…like animals, we seek to put food
on the table and keep a roof over our head’s…that is animal existence,
nothing more…there is no ‘‘human’’ engagement with the questions of
existence…

the so called Kantian questions of existence, ‘‘who am I?’’ ‘‘what am I to do?’’
‘‘What values should I hold?’’ ‘‘What should I believe in?’’ Who has
time to engage in these vital questions when we are too busy
‘‘making a living’’

think of/about those who do ‘‘speak’’ for us? one thing I have noted is that there
are few if any in the public sphere who do as philosophers do, which is
engage in the questioning the the ‘‘status quo’’…questioning the morals, values,
the assumptions, the very direction of the state, the society, the church, and the
family… among other locations of ‘‘power’’…

in other words, dissent is stifled by a cone of silence over their work/voice…
the “official” word offered up by the state/society is the only voice allowed…
those political officials, government agencies, the ones who are “allowed” to
speak, and you never, ever hear about doubt or dissent within the American
landscape… that is forbidden…on either the left or the right…

thus the only system that is promoted is the “failed” system of capitalism…
for that system allows those in power, their power and wealth…
which is the point, not to express freedom or understanding
of what it means to be human, no, the only goal is to
continue the the status quo which allows those in wealth and power to
continue, to remain in wealth and power…

and we never hear about any other choices or possibilities for human
beings…recall that 95% of all media, of ALL media, is owned by
6 media corporations… and those who benefit from owning those
multi billion dollars corporations, will not allow any dissent to
go over the airways, so to protect their massive interest in
maintaining and controlling the economy…

in other words, the corporate overlords will not allow dissent
in any type of platform to give the American people a choice
in what type of government or economy that we have…

there is but one voice and that voice is of those who own
the means of production…and no other voice is allowed…

and that is the value of Foucault… he spoke out, said what
was on his mind… he wasn’t silenced by the official media
that goes out of its way to silence any dissent of business or
capitalism…or any dissent of what it means to be human…
which in the minds of the corporate overlords means to
work for the continue growth of those who own the means
of production…people only have value as workers, producers
and consumers… that is our only value because that puts
money into the pockets and power in the pockets of
those who own the means of production…
and that is what counts, not us human beings or what we might
be or become… our only value is to increase the GDP… and we
have no other value… at least according to the media, which is nothing
more then a means to give propaganda to its workers about what it means to
be human…

Kropotkin

Foucault offers us his life as an example of the possibilities that exists
out there/in here…

I take courage and look at my life…I am not interested as Foucault is in
sexuality as a “limit experience” an experience from which we can learn
what it means to be human…my life, properly understood, isn’t any
type of monument to dissent, for I did engage in dissent for many years,
as an anarchist’s, and the fact is, no one noticed and no one cared…

my life, properly understood is a life where I only had value as an
worker, consumer, producer… and I had no other value… my value
was only as as one of the millions who perpetuated the nihilism of society
only interested in the pursuit of profits… and nothing else…

and I played my role of producer, worker and consumer… now as a
checker in a major supermarket… one of thousands whose only value
is to engage in the pursuit of profits… and I have no other value…
either of being engaged in the Kantian questions of existence, “Who am I?”
“What does it mean to be human?” “what values should I engage with?”
or engaged with the questions of existence that ALL human beings should
engage with…if I meet my goal of basic human existence which is
the procurement of my daily needs to exist, then what is next?

let me explain… I, as a human being, as a member of life, must
seek out food, water, shelter, education, health care… as a condition to
my continued existence…in order to continue to exists, I must meet
my basic bodily needs that all of life must engage with… be it a dog, or a cow
or a cat or a microbe… the drive to continue our existence is the strongest
drive that all of life has…evolution has put into our own software,
the need to continue to exist… that is perhaps, the fundamental drive
of existence… to continue to exist…for all living things…

and I too, have been engaged in that fundamental drive of existence
by working all my life…but I ask… is that all there is to human existence?

is our human existence defined by our basic human/living drive to continue existence?
or, or do we have a larger possibility, availability to us?

or said another way, we have the possibility to ask ourselves/others…
what is the meaning of life? we are, as far as a I know, the only species
that can ask that question of ourselves… but why do we walk away from
our possibilities of questioning who we are? we accept that we exist
for the perpetuation of a deeply flawed economic/political system…
as workers, producers and consumers… but must we accept that is
our only possibility?

my value as a living being isn’t found in being a worker, producer,
consumer… my values as a living being, as a human being, lies in
my ability to question my own existence beyond just being a worker,
producer and consumer…my ability to gather the basic necessities
of existence isn’t the end of my possibilities but rather it is the
starting point of my possibilities…I seek out the basic necessities of
existence, food, water, shelter, health care, education and then I seek
out the next level of existence, which is seeking love, belonging, of
safety/security, of both the physical and mental/emotional necessities
of existence… for we must more human in seeking out
what is possible for us as human beings…in other words, engage
in the possibilities of what it means to be human… to rise above
just being animals and seeking the bare, minimum necessities of
existence which is the physical needs of life… food, water etc, etc…

in being only workers, producers and consumers, we are engaged in the
bottom rung of our possibilities… we are not engaged in anything above
our basic seeking necessities… when we could be engage in something more…
so my life as workers, producer and consumer has been a wasted life because
I didn’t engage with or was seeking that which is beyond just seeking
my bodily needs… I didn’t seek my potential, my possibilities as a human being,
and thus my life as a waste of existence…as I didn’t engage in the important
questions of existence as I should have, the Kantian questions …

''Who am I?" “What am I to do?” ''What values should I hold?“…
''What does it mean to be human?” ''What is the point of existence?"

Because I didn’t engage in those vastly more important questions of existence,
I wasted my life… instead I was just a worker, producer, and consumer…
I wasted my possibilities of becoming something more then just
a worker, producer, a consumer… I could have become something
akin to a human being by seeking out the questions of existence…

thus Foucault and others, those who spend their lives thinking, understanding,
working out the human possibilities of existence, in becoming more then
just a worker, producer, a consumer… that is the value of their life…
in showing us what is possible for us as human beings… something greater
then just being cannon fodder for a society/state that only values
us as cannon fodder… to provide the state/society with profits…
as our only value as a human being according to the state/society…

I, as a human being, have greater value then the dehumanization, the devaluation
of human beings that currently exists in America today as being a worker,
producer and a consumer…

as always, my goal isn’t to provide us with answers, yet, no my goal is to simply
wake us up to what it means, as currently provided, what it means to be human…we
cannot, cannot escape our current fate until we become aware of what the state/society
is doing to us… we must become aware before we can even begin to think about
making changes…to become “woke” to the real possibilities of what it means to
be human… something more then just seeking the basic necessities of existence,
to putting food on our table…we are greater then that… if only we truly believe that…

Kropotkin

K asks :

"or said another way, we have the possibility to ask ourselves/others…
what is the meaning of life? "

youtu.be/vabfV4HRvRY

K: as I have noted before, I don’t “do” youtube… if you have something to say,
say it… otherwise I will ignore anything found on Youtube…

Kropotkin

Sorry K, I didn’t realize, …