cybernetic: needed to focus on my edu situation, very much so. i should
have thought it through better, impulse/intuit told me to do
it as it was done though. it feels good in an emptying way.
something is in the way. something is in the way, and this
becomes priority for me, what is in the way-- is -- in fact
some assumption, so i have been reading, reading heidegger,
and i think i have found this something-- a word way-- idea
that is limiting, inaccurate, and is a propeller on the way
secular thought is given authority over ideas.
this, out of necessity, also directly connects with my case
in school, but unfortunately there exists no law on this
earth which makes the case for considering oneself a human
being with a mind before a human-animal with a brain.
This assumption, which heidegger made, was that in the standing
in front of the objectively described, man would choose his
subjectivity, and thus find a we in this common condition.
that is the short of it, and the long of it is that this idea
is the perpetuator of individual universes in its limiting of
_humans_ before science with the particular "man".
As in the case of "man" and scientific objectivity, this idea
can also become "man-woman" and is itself a "us", or it could
be a "man-woman>child" which might be considered _evolution_
of this (subjective) quality of "man" within the objectivity
of science.
This idea also could equate, in the tradition use, as "man"
versus "man" in competition, survival of the fittest and of
the anthropological equation that heidegger surmises being
the key to the puzzle.
Even within this, the modern equality of human rights would
fit this anthropological model of (hu)mans existence in the
universe, with competition between man-woman, or woman-woman,
marriage and evolution between man-man/woman-woman>child, of
course, with the aid of scientific birthing techniques in a
evolutionary modelling of the (hu)man species.
The difference i find within the mis-representation of word
is the scale of the objective question of science and its
full objectivication of humanity within it. So that an idea
such as "human" in science is never realized, because the
scale is one step down the particular ladder, never allowing
a common within "man" to be found-- there is no we, but rather
the ideas in the proof of heidegger giving clues to the nature
of the problem-- personal subjectivity, individual objectivity,
self-certainty-- all fine, but within the "us" and "them" way
of being "man" or "woman" but without the "human" connection-
these acts become actions perpetuating the isolation of the
human question.
so anyway, within "quesiton concerning tech and other essays"
i have found a word assumption that concludes with the raising
of anthropology as the answer, or the big question. for me,
this is what is happening in school-- what comes first-- the
control of the human animal, or the human ability to think
and question in public-- and with the vacant adopting of the
scientific (anthro) ethic without being able to reason with
its truths-- well, i am left without a mind, and without the
ability to act with my mind for the public good, with history,
or much else; but instead i am to fit the social collective,
behave- or else- become eco/soc/pol extinct (which i have done
before because of the same problems-- but this time i will not
back down-- but instead stand my ground, unfortunately though,
i have nothing to support me, no law, no lawyers, nothing that
can support my belief that i should be treated as a human being
before a lobotimized, drugged, chastized, isolated phenomena.)
so i have heidegger, a mis-statement of the question concerning
the objective question that addresses the hu(man) idea, and this
is all i have, this-- and this alone. me, myself, and i-- but
this i consider WE, our question, and so that is also a strength
that i let myself believe i have in attempting to addresss the
question. i lose, we lose. everybody loses, everywhere.
heidegger talks about the ~ego of the subject-- and maybe this
example is the differentiation of (my)self with others who have
taken his descriptions seriously... the man and the ~subjective
of the ~ego or the human and the ~subjective of the ~ego.
the (man) derives the "i" or "us" - particular
the human derives the "we" or "humanity" - universal
one word makes so much difference. it makes an uncommon common.
even the question between anthropology and religion is affected
in this description, and can be logically formatted so that the
human is derived as a first event, and the human as scientific
object as nature, as a following realization:event which should
not be considered as it is- our directing ethic- scientific; or
anthropoligical-- because it expects nothing more from the human
than to be predictable and behave within the understood model.
with a human ethic first-- scientific ethic second, for it only
expects "man" in its personal subjective ego.
so it is a race, and it need to speed up some, and it-- for me,
a/e/un, needs to happen, has to happen-- or i have never lived.
survival of the fittest, and public ideas do not mix well, and
especially when education is beyond law, and private security
systems prevail the ability to act in goodwill to eachother--
it must happen-- science and technology and e-state are givens;
public losing to private is a given condition-- no doubt about
it-- private socialism-- no doubt about it, it is already here
and it is what i am fighting against-- in public. private values
directing the future; no doubt, beyond reasoning-- and i think
of all the soldiers who fought and died for our ability to live
and direct the idea of freedom in the future-- and instead all
"we" do (the private "us") is doubt its affect on "i" until it
will be beyond doubt-- and also under total (private) control.
private socialism. history says marx realized the evolution of
capitalism into socialism-- because of objective necessity- and
as it happens, is happening on large private scales, :WE: doubt,
or "US" ignores, privately-- beyond law, until it is beyond the
ability to reason-- "man" instead of "human" and of certainty;
self-certainty meaning either "I" or "WE". I choose WE.
If there was a responsible public realm of ideas, this case
could be reasoned, beyond doubt (look at private electricity;
the foundation of the industrial production/consumption base;
or the state electricity and private media/defense firms) but
there is no place in the educational system to address these
"public" "we" concerns-- because of only being an anthropolical
"i"; meaning man/woman, and considered in competition with all
others, for the self- for evolving self-; at whatever price,
while those with public self "we" are treated without respect,
are taunted, named, pushed, and ultimately assumed to be of the
dying breed, poor in their abilities to survive in this nature.
this is only the animal nature-- not the human nature-- more
than one, this is the cumulation of human to human communcation
and the ability of humans to address concerns that they have
themselves created (a/sci/tech/e/un) and at this point it is
under heidegger's assumption "man" instead of "human" and
this equates directly to the "private" and the "public" idea
of being, of being human-animal, ethics, values, and there is
nothing to stand behind in this public battle- for the public.
a vast emptiness-- void of belief, humans believing eachother-
any individual, even though this is what we base our ideas on.
of "man" and not of "human"? i human- i destiny- i evolution--
we- human destiny
to reconsider heidegger's use of word-description brings either
insight "human as an object of science" (and this subjectivity)
or the paradox of the present, revealing "man in world picture"
Being and Time: Being Man and Time or Human Being and Time ?
have thought it through better, impulse/intuit told me to do
it as it was done though. it feels good in an emptying way.
something is in the way. something is in the way, and this
becomes priority for me, what is in the way-- is -- in fact
some assumption, so i have been reading, reading heidegger,
and i think i have found this something-- a word way-- idea
that is limiting, inaccurate, and is a propeller on the way
secular thought is given authority over ideas.
this, out of necessity, also directly connects with my case
in school, but unfortunately there exists no law on this
earth which makes the case for considering oneself a human
being with a mind before a human-animal with a brain.
This assumption, which heidegger made, was that in the standing
in front of the objectively described, man would choose his
subjectivity, and thus find a we in this common condition.
that is the short of it, and the long of it is that this idea
is the perpetuator of individual universes in its limiting of
_humans_ before science with the particular "man".
As in the case of "man" and scientific objectivity, this idea
can also become "man-woman" and is itself a "us", or it could
be a "man-woman>child" which might be considered _evolution_
of this (subjective) quality of "man" within the objectivity
of science.
This idea also could equate, in the tradition use, as "man"
versus "man" in competition, survival of the fittest and of
the anthropological equation that heidegger surmises being
the key to the puzzle.
Even within this, the modern equality of human rights would
fit this anthropological model of (hu)mans existence in the
universe, with competition between man-woman, or woman-woman,
marriage and evolution between man-man/woman-woman>child, of
course, with the aid of scientific birthing techniques in a
evolutionary modelling of the (hu)man species.
The difference i find within the mis-representation of word
is the scale of the objective question of science and its
full objectivication of humanity within it. So that an idea
such as "human" in science is never realized, because the
scale is one step down the particular ladder, never allowing
a common within "man" to be found-- there is no we, but rather
the ideas in the proof of heidegger giving clues to the nature
of the problem-- personal subjectivity, individual objectivity,
self-certainty-- all fine, but within the "us" and "them" way
of being "man" or "woman" but without the "human" connection-
these acts become actions perpetuating the isolation of the
human question.
so anyway, within "quesiton concerning tech and other essays"
i have found a word assumption that concludes with the raising
of anthropology as the answer, or the big question. for me,
this is what is happening in school-- what comes first-- the
control of the human animal, or the human ability to think
and question in public-- and with the vacant adopting of the
scientific (anthro) ethic without being able to reason with
its truths-- well, i am left without a mind, and without the
ability to act with my mind for the public good, with history,
or much else; but instead i am to fit the social collective,
behave- or else- become eco/soc/pol extinct (which i have done
before because of the same problems-- but this time i will not
back down-- but instead stand my ground, unfortunately though,
i have nothing to support me, no law, no lawyers, nothing that
can support my belief that i should be treated as a human being
before a lobotimized, drugged, chastized, isolated phenomena.)
so i have heidegger, a mis-statement of the question concerning
the objective question that addresses the hu(man) idea, and this
is all i have, this-- and this alone. me, myself, and i-- but
this i consider WE, our question, and so that is also a strength
that i let myself believe i have in attempting to addresss the
question. i lose, we lose. everybody loses, everywhere.
heidegger talks about the ~ego of the subject-- and maybe this
example is the differentiation of (my)self with others who have
taken his descriptions seriously... the man and the ~subjective
of the ~ego or the human and the ~subjective of the ~ego.
the (man) derives the "i" or "us" - particular
the human derives the "we" or "humanity" - universal
one word makes so much difference. it makes an uncommon common.
even the question between anthropology and religion is affected
in this description, and can be logically formatted so that the
human is derived as a first event, and the human as scientific
object as nature, as a following realization:event which should
not be considered as it is- our directing ethic- scientific; or
anthropoligical-- because it expects nothing more from the human
than to be predictable and behave within the understood model.
with a human ethic first-- scientific ethic second, for it only
expects "man" in its personal subjective ego.
so it is a race, and it need to speed up some, and it-- for me,
a/e/un, needs to happen, has to happen-- or i have never lived.
survival of the fittest, and public ideas do not mix well, and
especially when education is beyond law, and private security
systems prevail the ability to act in goodwill to eachother--
it must happen-- science and technology and e-state are givens;
public losing to private is a given condition-- no doubt about
it-- private socialism-- no doubt about it, it is already here
and it is what i am fighting against-- in public. private values
directing the future; no doubt, beyond reasoning-- and i think
of all the soldiers who fought and died for our ability to live
and direct the idea of freedom in the future-- and instead all
"we" do (the private "us") is doubt its affect on "i" until it
will be beyond doubt-- and also under total (private) control.
private socialism. history says marx realized the evolution of
capitalism into socialism-- because of objective necessity- and
as it happens, is happening on large private scales, :WE: doubt,
or "US" ignores, privately-- beyond law, until it is beyond the
ability to reason-- "man" instead of "human" and of certainty;
self-certainty meaning either "I" or "WE". I choose WE.
If there was a responsible public realm of ideas, this case
could be reasoned, beyond doubt (look at private electricity;
the foundation of the industrial production/consumption base;
or the state electricity and private media/defense firms) but
there is no place in the educational system to address these
"public" "we" concerns-- because of only being an anthropolical
"i"; meaning man/woman, and considered in competition with all
others, for the self- for evolving self-; at whatever price,
while those with public self "we" are treated without respect,
are taunted, named, pushed, and ultimately assumed to be of the
dying breed, poor in their abilities to survive in this nature.
this is only the animal nature-- not the human nature-- more
than one, this is the cumulation of human to human communcation
and the ability of humans to address concerns that they have
themselves created (a/sci/tech/e/un) and at this point it is
under heidegger's assumption "man" instead of "human" and
this equates directly to the "private" and the "public" idea
of being, of being human-animal, ethics, values, and there is
nothing to stand behind in this public battle- for the public.
a vast emptiness-- void of belief, humans believing eachother-
any individual, even though this is what we base our ideas on.
of "man" and not of "human"? i human- i destiny- i evolution--
we- human destiny
to reconsider heidegger's use of word-description brings either
insight "human as an object of science" (and this subjectivity)
or the paradox of the present, revealing "man in world picture"
Being and Time: Being Man and Time or Human Being and Time ?